b t/ NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION Bankruptcy - application for discharge - objections by creditors - possible after acquired property - principles to be applied. Bankruptcy Act 1966 para.116\2)(q) and s.150 RE: RONALD GORDON GEYER - Bankrupt EX PARTE: RONALD GORDON GEYER - Applicant No. 603 of 1983 TOOHEY J. PERTH 9 DECEMBER 1985 ammo, e NOT INTENDED FOR CISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA GENERAL DIVISION BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALTA No. 603 of 1983 Ne ee RE: RONALD GORDON GEYER Bankrupt EX PARTE: RONALD GORDON GEYER Applicant MINUTE OF QRDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: TOOHEY J. DATE OF ORDER: 9 December 1985 WHERE MADE: Perth THE COURT. ORDERS THAT: The Court refuses to make an order of discharge. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules. wer ce yee UNTO yn pet mg oo pp ee ee eee: . ame et me OS He, . . atte Perc rep a ik NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA GENERAL DIVISION BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA No. 603 of 1983 we we ewnw RE: RONALD GORDON GEYER Bankrupt EX PARTE: RONALD GORDON GEYER Applicant . aQ ORAM: TOOHEY J. 9 December 1985 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Ronald Gordon Geyer was made bankrupt on his own petition on 8 September 1983. In the ordinary course he will not be discharged from bankruptcy until September 1986. However he seeks an order for discharge at this stage. The bankrupt appeared in person. The Official Receiver appeared in person. Paul Edward Ferguson, whose firm P. & R. Ferguson is the major creditor of the bankrupt, appeared to support a notice of intention to oppose the application for discharge on the ground that the bankrupt "is an unfit person to be discharged from bankruptcy". Another creditor C. & R. Neill also gave notice of intention to oppose the application on the ground that "we have not received any full or part payment of the debt owed to us ...". This creditor did not appear on the hearing of the application for discharge. a: ane wee tease ee cee an eee - we ste ' ek -wearc on, ee eigen ieee arena -be met erery ee emer mes woe te % - poate , i The Official Receiver received proofs of debt amounting to $30,629. Assets of the bankrupt were realized, producing an amount of $5,727. The estimated value of unrealized assets is nil. Dividends amounting to 10.49 cents in the dollar have been paid to creditors. The applicant has had a somewhat tangled financial history. At the time of his bankruptcy he was unemployed and was receiving sickness benefits. In 1979, while working for the Department of Agriculture, he injured his back and as a result was on workers compensation for some 3 vears. According to Mr. Geyer, he was entitled to compensation of some $50.000 but is due to receive only $19,000. He did not explain with any clarity whv he is to receive only $19.000 but the difference seems in part to be explained by payments of compensation (perhaps weekly payments) already made to him by his employer. In 1981 Mr. Geyer was farming near Pingaring and it was at this time that he bought a Piper Cherokee aircraft from P. & R. Ferquson for the sum of $15,000. He paid a deposit of $1,500 by cheque. The cheque was dishonoured but Mr. Gever made arrangements for payment of the amount due. The balance of purchase price was to be paid in Februarv 1982 but it was never paid. Unfortunately for P. & R. Ferquson. the bankrupt was qiven possession of the aircraft even before the deposit was paid. Mr. Feraquson complained that various arrangements were made by Mr. Geyer for payment of the balance but none of these arrangements came to anything. His complaint that the bankrupt is --- 4 3. an untit person to be discharged from bankruptcy was based upon his dealings with Mr. Geyer over the aircraft, dealings which included several undertakings by the bankrupt which were not honoured. In 1982 Mr. Geyer moved to Mungari Station near Coolgardie. then part owned by one Howard Forgie. Mr. Geyer claims that. by reason of moneys expended by him and work done on the property together with an arrangement for the payment of further moneys, he was to obtain an interest in the station. According to Mr. Geyer, his contribution of further monevs was to come from the expected workers compensation payout. in January 1983 Mr. Forqie was killed in an accident and it then emerged that the station was owned jointly by him and another person in South Australia and that it was considerably in debt. It seems that since 1983 Mr. Gever has sought leqal advice as to his prospects or enforcing his claim aqainst the estate of Mr. Foraie but no action has been taken on his behalf. Any riaght of action he has in this respect has vested in the Official Receiver as trustee in bankruptcy. It emerged during the hearing that Mr. Gever had, since his bankruptcy, made payment of some small amounts to particular creditors. This 1s a matter the Official Receiver may wish to pursue but he did not suqgest that it was relevant to the application and I find it unnecessary to consider that matter. In my view this is not a proper case for the granting of a discharge prior to the expiration of the statutory nomen rat Ve woop ete period of 3 years. In Re Tarvydas (unreported decision delivered 25 November 1985) I dealt with the principles to be applied when a discharge is sought prior to the statutory period. I shall not repeat what is said there. But in my view Mr. Geyer has not presented any cogent reason for granting this application. Indeed, it may well be in the interests of his creditors that he remain bankrupt while the Official Receiver conducts investiqations in reqard to a possible claim against the estate of Mr. Foraie. The question of Mr. Gever's entitlement to workers compensation is not one for the Official Receiver - see para.116(2)(q) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. The Official Receiver's report raises no matter within sub-s.150(6) of the Bankruptcy Act. But the fact remains that no adequate reason has been offered why the Court should grant an early discharge from bankruptcy. In the circumstances the application must be dismissed. I certify that this and the preceding three pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of his Honour Mr. Justice Toohey Associate Dated: 7 Jectinter, /985