Platcher v Joseph [2004] FCAFC 68

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Platcher v Joseph [2004] FCAFC 68 BANKRUPTCY - failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice - appeal from single judge of the Federal Court - proceedings heard together - annulment proceeding - contention that sequestration order ought not to have been made because legal representatives not present and debt discharged - contention primary judge erred in rejection of evidence challenging the judgment debt upon which bankruptcy notice based - evidence in relation to compromise of debt equivocal - managing a corporation as a bankrupt irrelevant to exercise of discretion to annul bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act - no basis established for reaching different conclusion to primary judge - (CTH) Bankruptcy Act 1966 ss 153A, 153B - appeal dismissed. CORPORATIONS - appeal from single judge of the Federal Court - proceedings heard together - disqualification proceeding - application by Australian Securities & Investments Commission ("ASIC") to disqualify appellant from managing a corporation - managing corporation while insolvent without leave of the Court - activities comprehended in the concept of management - undischarged bankrupt disqualified from managing corporations - purpose of disqualification to protect public - members of the public suffered extensive losses - appellant banned from managing a corporation for 25 years - contention that appellant did not manage the corporation - no basis established to interfere with primary judge's assessment of the evidence - (CTH) Corporations Act 2001 ss 206A, 206B, 206E - appeal dismissed. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - unrepresented litigant - extent to which trial judge required to assist unrepresented litigant - extent of duty of trial judge to ensure fair trial - assistance appropriate in some circumstances - ensure advantage not conferred on unrepresented litigant - trial judge did not breach any duties to unrepresented litigant. Federal Court Rules O 77 r 9 Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 153A, 153B Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 206A, 206B, 206E, 1330 Corporations Law ss 91A, 229, 1311 Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 19 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 37 Platcher, in the matter of Platcher v Joseph [2003] FCA 9 referred to Commissioner for Corporate Affairs v Bracht [1989] VR 821 cited Minogue v HREOC (1999) 84 FCR 438 followed Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403 cited Neil v Nott (1994) 121 ALR 148 cited Rajski v Scitec Corporation Pty Ltd (unreported, Court of Appeal, NSW, Full Court, No. CA 146 of 1986) cited Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534 at 536-7 cited Johnson v Johnson (1997) 139 FLR 384 cited In the Marriage of F (2001) 161 FLR 189 discussed National Australia Bank Ltd v Rusu (1999) 47 NSWLR 309 cited Santamaria v Secretary to Department of Human Services [1998] VSC 107 cited Zegarac v Tomasevic [2003] VSC 150 cited Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 cited Dukemaster Pty Ltd v Bluehive Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 180 cited CHARLES EDWARD PLATCHER v PAUL FRANCIS JOSEPH N72 OF 2003 CHARLES EDWARD PLATCHER v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES & INVESTMENTS COMMISSION N73 OF 2003 TAMBERLIN, EMMETT & WEINBERG JJ 26 MARCH 2004 SYDNEY