Federal Court of Australia
wn
IS!
CATCHWORDS
Bankruptcy - Discharge - Trustee's application for extension of time at which objection to discharge will lapse dismissed - Bankrupt's costs - Whether to order payment by trustee.
Bankruptcy Act, 1966 - s.149(8)
RE: MICHAEL WARSHALL, a bankrupt EX PARTE: THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY (as trustee of the property of Michael Warshall, a bankrupt )
No. 1176 of 1981
Jenkinson J. Melbourne 6 April, 1987
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA GENERAL DIVISION
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF VICTORIA
No. 1176 of 1981
—~ ewe
RE: MICHAER WARSHALL, a bankrupt
EX PARTE: THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY (as trustee of
the property of Michael Warshall, a bankrupt)
Applicant
CORAM: Jenkinson J. PLACE: Melbourne DATE: 6 April, 1987
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 26 November 1986 I dismissed an application, by the trustee of the bankrupt, for an order pursuant to s.149(8) of the
Bankruptcy Act 1966 that the period, at the expiration of which an
objection which the trustee had entered under s.149(3)(c) of that
Act will lapse, be extended. Mr. Davies of counsel for the bankrupt, by whom the application had been successfully resisted, sought an order that the bankrupt's costs of the application he paid by the trustee. The ground of the application had been that time was required for further investigation of the bankrupt's conduct, both to determine whether that conduct had been seriously blameworthy in certain respects and to discover any further assets
by the recovery of which the bankrupt's estate might be augmented.
The submissions in support of the bankrupt's claim for
costs against the trustee were similar to those advanced in
support of such a claim in Re N.R. Campbell; Ex parte Official
Trustee in Bankruptcy (No. 234 of 1977). In the latter case I
have today refused to make any order for costs and have published my reasons for that refusal. That case concerned an application by a trustee under s5.149(12) which was dismissed, but in my Opinion the reasons stated are applicable, mutatis mutandis, to an application under s5.149(8). For the reasons stated in Re N.R. Campbell, a copy of which is annexed to these reasons, I consider that no order for costs should be made against a trustee whose application for an order under s.149(8) is dismissed, unless' the making or the prosecution of the application has been in some way
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate