Re Brasier [1950] HCA 39

Re Brasier [1950] HCA 39

Section 219(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1924-1948 imposes a three-year limitation only on summary proceedings instituted in respect of offences under the Act, and does not apply to proceedings by way of indictment. Thus, indictments are not subject to that limitation.

Parties
Official Receiver/trustee: Official Receiver (George Weir Burns); Bankrupt/respondent: Lillian Ellen Brasier
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 1950
Procedural Posture
Case Stated by Federal Court of Bankruptcy for High Court Opinion / Special Case Stated on Statutory Interpretation; Application for Discharge Adjourned Pending Decision
Outcome
The three-year limitation does not apply to proceedings by indictment—answered "No" to question stated.
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods in Bankruptcy Offences, Procedural Requirements for Indictments and Summary Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Official Receiver (George Weir Burns)

Official Receiver/trustee

Lillian Ellen Brasier

Bankrupt/respondent

Procedural Posture

Case Stated by Federal Court of Bankruptcy for High Court Opinion / Special Case Stated on Statutory Interpretation; Application for Discharge Adjourned Pending Decision

  1. 1 Does the three-year limitation period in s. 219(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1924-1948 apply to proceedings by way of indictment against a bankrupt for an offence under s. 209(g)?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 219(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1924-1948 imposes a three-year limitation only on summary proceedings instituted in respect of offences under the Act, and does not apply to proceedings by way of indictment. Thus, indictments are not subject to that limitation.

Court Disposition

The three-year limitation does not apply to proceedings by indictment—answered "No" to question stated.

Orders

  • High Court answers question stated: No. Costs order not imposed on the bankrupt personally; costs to be part of winding up the estate.