Karounos, S. & Ors v. Official Trustee [1988] FCA 284

Karounos, S. & Ors v. Official Trustee [1988] FCA 284

The grounds supporting the issuance of the s.81 summonses were suitably particularised and sufficient, given the close connections of the appellants with Krakat and the bankrupt. The scope of the summonses was appropriately tailored to seek information relevant to the bankrupt's dealings and not so wide as to be oppressive. The Registrar and Court were entitled to consider knowledge from earlier proceedings in the same bankruptcy. No improper purpose or unfairness was demonstrated. Accordingly, the appeal must fail.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 1988
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From Single Judge Decision Refusing to Set Aside Summonses Issued Under S.81 of Bankruptcy Act 1966
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['examination of Third Parties' 'oppression of Process' 'discovery in Bankruptcy' 'summonses Under S.81']
['bankruptcy'] ['examination of Third Parties' 'oppression of Process' 'discovery in Bankruptcy' 'summonses Under S.81']

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

Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From Single Judge Decision Refusing to Set Aside Summonses Issued Under S.81 of Bankruptcy Act 1966

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the grounds stated in the s.81 application were adequate' 'Whether the summonses issued under s.81 were oppressive, too wide, or used for an improper purpose' 'Whether the Registrar/Court may have regard to information from earlier proceedings in the same bankruptcy' 'Principles governing issuance and scope of third party summonses in bankruptcy' 'Whether there was unfairness or oppression due to pending litigation']

Ratio Decidendi

The grounds supporting the issuance of the s.81 summonses were suitably particularised and sufficient, given the close connections of the appellants with Krakat and the bankrupt. The scope of the summonses was appropriately tailored to seek information relevant to the bankrupt's dealings and not so wide as to be oppressive. The Registrar and Court were entitled to consider knowledge from earlier proceedings in the same bankruptcy. No improper purpose or unfairness was demonstrated. Accordingly, the appeal must fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'The appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal.']