Re Clyne, P.L. v. Ex Parte Commissioner of Taxation [1986] FCA 410

Re Clyne, P.L. v. Ex Parte Commissioner of Taxation [1986] FCA 410

The questions sought to be put to the bankrupt fall within the scope of s.69 and are permissible; the privilege against self-incrimination does not excuse answering the questions in these circumstances due to s.69(12); no other sufficient basis for disallowing the questions is made out.

Parties
Bankrupt: Peter Leopold Clyne; Creditor: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 1986
Procedural Posture
Public Examination in Bankruptcy / Application for Permission to Put Certain Questions to the Bankrupt During Public Examination Under S.69
Outcome
Questions allowed; application by bankrupt refused.
Legal Topics
Public Examination, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Scope of Examination, Creditor's Role, Abuse of Process, Income Tax Assessment Act S.16
Bankruptcy Public Examination Privilege Against Self Incrimination Scope of Examination Creditor's Role Abuse of Process Income Tax Assessment Act S.16

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Leopold Clyne

Bankrupt

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation

Creditor

Procedural Posture

Public Examination in Bankruptcy / Application for Permission to Put Certain Questions to the Bankrupt During Public Examination Under S.69

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the questions sought to be put to the bankrupt fall within the permissible scope of a public examination under s.69 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966
  2. 2 Whether discretion under s.69(11) should be exercised to disallow the questions
  3. 3 Whether the privilege against self-incrimination applies to the public examination and the effect of s.69(12)

Ratio Decidendi

The questions sought to be put to the bankrupt fall within the scope of s.69 and are permissible; the privilege against self-incrimination does not excuse answering the questions in these circumstances due to s.69(12); no other sufficient basis for disallowing the questions is made out.

Court Disposition

Questions allowed; application by bankrupt refused.

Orders

  • In the public examination of the bankrupt Peter Leopold Clyne the two specified questions may be put to him.