' |i | i ' I | JUDGMENT. No. AV OY nn NOT INTENDED FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA GENERAL DIVISION BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF ' WESTERN AUSTRALIA ee we NO. 524 of 1985 and 517 of 1985 RE: NIGEL JOHN MREK and LEAH CATHERINE MEEK ' Bankrupts EX PARTE: LEAH CATHERINE MEEK Applicant MINUTE OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: FRENCH J. DATE _OF ORDER: 1 September 1987 WHERE MADE: Perth : THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The bankrupt is discharged with effect from 1 September 1987. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy fe" court Aes hla OF Fen tentt fr NY SS aSTRE VA ee aot aennener ag we Boa et -t. 8 ne ree ee sa ? ° NOT INTENDED FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA GENERAL DIVISION BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA www ww NO. 524 of 1985 and 517 of 1985 RE: NIGEL JOHN MEEK and LEAH CATHERINE MEEK Bankrupts EX PARTE: LEAH CATHERINE MEEK Applicant CORAM: FRENCH J. 1 September 1987 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Leah Catherine Meek became a bankrupt on presentation of her own petition on 12 November 1985. Her husband, Nigel John Meek, became a bankrupt two days later in the same way. On 23 October 1986 an order was made by Toohey J. under s.53 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 consolidating proceedings in the two bankruptcies and fixing 12 November 1985 as the date of commencement of bankruptcy for the joint and separate estates. Mrs Meek and her husband separated in August 1985. She was left with their two school-aged children to maintain. She is now divorced from Mr Meek and lives on a supporting parent's benefit supplemented by earnings from part-time work. She maintains one of the two children, but the other is no longer dependent upon her. ne Tr eee geen oe aT + amt et en yee = ep wo . ce avy eee wy eee - ae 2. The history behind the bankruptcy 1s set out in the Official Trustee's report and dates back to May 1982 when Mr & Mrs Meek started to trade in partnership as plumbing contractors. They began their business with no capital. On 10 May 1984 they borrowed $11,401.00 from Avco Financial Services to consolidate outstanding debts and a debt previously owed to that firm. The loan was to be repaid by monthly instalments of $354.00 over a 5 year term. It was secured in part by a charge over Mr and Mrs Meek's house at 7 Furness Way, Koondoola which they had purchased in 1976 under a contract of sale with the State Housing Commission (now Homeswest) with monthly instalments of $131.00. On 31 October 1984 the Meeks entered a lease agreement with Esanda Ltd in respect of a Nissan Patrol vehicle for a term of 5 years and monthly repayments of $302.09. Their business ceased to operate in May 1985 for lack of work. They were then generating an average weekly turnover of $400.00 which was insufficient to meet the costs of the business and their living expenses. No proofs of debt were lodged against Mrs Meek's separate estate. Proofs of debt against the joint estate of she and her husband amounted to $9,785.00. = mri 3. From her separate estate some $783.70 was realised. The jointly owned house property at Koondoola yielded a surplus of $5,067.26. Sufficient funds are held in the joint estate to pay official fees and the Official Trustee's fees. In the separate estate of Mrs Meek, there is sufficient for payment of official fees and part payment of the Official Trustee's fees. In the joint estate there is enough for a dividend of 33.8615 cents in the dollar. In the opinion of the Official Trustee, Mrs Meek's bankruptcy is attributable to excessive use of credit facilities. There is no question of unsatisfactory conduct on her part, nor of any misconduct under sub~-s.150(6) of the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors have been notified of the application, but none opposes it. Mrs Meek attributes her misfortune to her husband's inadequacy in providing for the family. As expressed in her affidavit in support of the application, she seeks discharge to facilitate the chance of a new life for the benefit of herself and her children. Wt ore cress pot sea ' Be te ern ee we eres ue 4. It does not appear that her bankruptcy as interfering with her ability to obtain accommodation or to do part-time work. Her reason for seeking discharge as explained to the Court on the hearing of the application was, in essence, to rid herself of the last legacy of her marital relationship with her former husband. She has no intention of entering upon any commercial activity on her own account. An application for discharge from bankruptcy is never treated Lightly by the Court. Consideration must be given not only to the interests of the applicant and his or her creditors but also to the interests of the public and commercial morality. - Re: Maher (1985) 61 ALR 592, 598. In the ordinary course Mrs Meek would be discharged by operation of law in November 1988. The circumstances of her bankruptcy do not disclose any question going to assues of public interest or commercial morality. For myself, I can see no useful purpose to be served by the prolongation of this bankruptcy and 1t may be that there will, at least, be some psychological benefit to Mrs Meek, who, it is apparent, is living in reduced circumstances. ase Foes ee pe ee rere yates wees \ Met ee ee ere, > Be ee age - gp eee 5. In the event I am prepared to make the orders sought. I certify that this and the preceding four (4) pages are a true and correct copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Mr Justice French. Associate: Ge lrperm. OR oKs. pate: | Parent \4AS7. Mrs L.C. Meek appeared on her own behalf. Mr F.D. O'Driscoll appeared on behalf of the Official Trustee. Date of Hearing: 24 August 1987 Date of Judgment: 1 September 1987 ST tee en ee SS pert eee se