¢ - "hy Lay —, Uueee took NOMA LIMITED DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA GENERAL DIVISION BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY No. P.2085 of 1986 PHILLIP MORRISON and ELIZABETH MARY MORRISON Debtors EX PARTE: SHORELINE CURRENCIES (AUSTRALIA) PTY. LIMITED (in liquidation) Creditor EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BURCHETT J. In this matter, a creditor's petition under' the ' Bankruptcy Act 1966 is to come before the Court on 2 February 1987. Substituted service has been effected on the 'debtors, pursuant to an order in that behalf, by delivery of the petition and other documents to a solicitor in Sydney, a Mr. Jankowsk1, and to solicitors 1n London. The debtors left Australia suddenly some time ago, and their last known address was somewhere in the United Kingdom. A recent letter, to a firm of solicitors in London representing a receiver appointed in England, suggests that they have left England and are concealing their present whereabouts, but intend instructing Mr. Jankowski to take proceedings against the United Kingdom receiver. On 20 November 1986, I made an order appointing a receiver of the property of the debtors under s.50 of the Bankruptcy Act. I also made an order under s.29(4) that a letter of request issue, as a result of which there was an appointment of the receiver in England to whom I have just referred. The receiver appointed under s.50, Mr. MacIntosh, now seeks (pursuant to liberty which I reserved in the order appointing him) an order empowering him to complete a contract for the sale, at a price of $440,000, of land and a house erected on 1t at 88 Hopetoun Avenue, Vaucluse. The title to the land is registered under the provisions of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), in names which are not the correct names of the debtors, but are names used by them. The evidence is compelling that the land is theirs, subject to the contract. At the time I appointed the receiver, 1t now appears, the contract had already been entered into. The purchasers are pressing for completion which is now due. The receiver fears that delay may result in the rescission of the contract and possible claims for damages. He has obtained the advice of a valuer that the price is a proper price. Section 50 empowers the Court, in an appropriate case, to direct the trustee "to take control of the property of the debtor" and to "make such orders in relation to that property as the Court considers just". In Re Choi On On, an unreported 3. decision of my own of 24 June 1985, I held that the section empowered the Court to appoint a receiver of a debtor's property; but a receiver is not, simply by virtue of his appointment as receiver, generally entitled to sell property: Kerr on Receivers, 16th edition, page 184. In this case, of course, the property received was not the land, but the rights of vendors of their land under a contract for its sale into which they had already entered. The Court 1S empowered by s.50 to "make such orders in relation to that property as the Court considers just". That 1s extremely general language. The words "in relation to" have been authoritatively given a very long reach in Regina v. Murphy (1985) 61 A.L.R. 139 at 145. In s.50, this extremely general language is intended, in my opinion, to confer wide powers to enable the objects of the section to be effectually carried out in the multiplicity of various situations which may be expected to arise. This language should not be restrictively construed. The words of s.50 "to take control of the property of the debtor" import in themselves considerable powers: cf. Australian Industry Development Corporation ov. Co~operative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply Limited (1978) 3 A.C.L.R. 543, especially at pp.553 - 554. These powers may at need be supplemented by the power conferred by s.30(1), as to which see Re Barlan; Ex parte Sisstrom, an unreported decision of Neaves J. delivered 11 April 1985, at page 6. But while the power 4. conferred by s.50 should be accepted as extensive, its exercise must be restrained by considerable caution. The section is concerned with cases where a sequestration order has not yet been made, and it may never be made. The peculiar circumstances of the present case do, however, in my opinion bring it within s.50. I propose to direct the receiver that he may proceed to complete the contract for sale of the land, and for that purpose may execute an appropriate transfer in the names of the debtors who are the registered proprietors of the land. I make orders in the form set out in the minutes of proposed orders with the addition of a further paragraph 5, which I have written in, which reads: Order that coples of these orders be served forthwith on the persons referred to in the order (i.e. the order for substituted service) of 26 November 1986. I certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Mr. Justice Burchett. Clon Coil Associate Dated: 19 Decémber, 1986.