Clout (Trustee), in the matter of Dexter (Bankrupt) [2000] FCA 1949

Clout (Trustee), in the matter of Dexter (Bankrupt) [2000] FCA 1949

The application was refused because there was no notice of appeal or draft notice of appeal, the examinees were shown to fall within par (d) of the definition of "examinable person", the additional procedural objections were not taken before Drummond J and did not justify setting aside the summonses, and there was no material non-disclosure by the trustee on the ex parte application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Application to Review a Decision by a Deputy District Registrar Declining to Stay or Adjourn Examinations Pursuant to S 81 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 / Hearing of Application on 14 December 2000
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['public Examinations' 'examinable Person' 'stay or Adjournment Pending Appeal' 'abuse of Process' 'discovery and Production of Documents' 'ex Parte Summonses']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure'] ['public Examinations' 'examinable Person' 'stay or Adjournment Pending Appeal' 'abuse of Process' 'discovery and Production of Documents' 'ex Parte Summonses']

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application to Review a Decision by a Deputy District Registrar Declining to Stay or Adjourn Examinations Pursuant to S 81 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 / Hearing of Application on 14 December 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Deputy District Registrar's refusal to stay or adjourn the s 81 Bankruptcy Act examinations should be reviewed." "Whether the summonses should be stayed or adjourned pending a proposed appeal from Drummond J's refusal to set them aside." 'Whether the examinees fell within par (d) of the definition of "examinable person" in s 5 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.' 'Whether alleged non-compliance with O 77 r 34(2) or alleged non-disclosure on the ex parte application justified intervention.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because there was no notice of appeal or draft notice of appeal, the examinees were shown to fall within par (d) of the definition of "examinable person", the additional procedural objections were not taken before Drummond J and did not justify setting aside the summonses, and there was no material non-disclosure by the trustee on the ex parte application.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.' "The applicants are to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings today."]