ater fer Restiig gc _ JUDGMENT No. @%a/ B77. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) GENERAL DIVISION ) QLD E1114 of 1986 BANKRUPICY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN )} DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND ) RE: JAIN MAXWELL DUNSTAN EX PARTE: THE BANKRUPT MINUTES OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: 4 DECEMBER 1987 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for discharge be dismissed. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules. a\ \ - , [ef RECEIVED ° ~— Opt tee 5 ne Sn Te FL f= "J FEDERAL Count or /~ 3, AUSHALIY Y es Reon } thos - 4 ve rer cee ee wpe eng eee Re pg sen err ry oe . rey wat - ~3 + IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) GENERAL DIVISTON ) QLD E1114 of 1986 BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN ) DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND ) RE: IAIN MAXWELL DUNSTAN EX PARTE: THE BANKRUPT PINCUS 7. 4 DECEMBER 1987 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application for discharge from bankruptcy. The applicant became bankrupt a year ago, on 1 December 1986, on the petition of Marac Finance Australia Limited, ("Marac"). According to the applicant's affidavit in support of his application, the cause of his bankruptcy was that Marac called for immediate payment of a personal loan of some $13,900 early in June 1986. He says that before that time he had been employed by an investment bank and also did "certain contract work overseas"; in the latter capacity he was owed about $8,000. He was unable to recover that sum and in dune 1986 was put off by his employer, remaining unemployed until October in that year. Between June 1986 and the date of the sequestration order, the applicant says, he realised virtually all his personal eae eee pee nem ay ne = ~f meee en pti a ee ee assets in an attempt to pay his debts, but was unable to pay that due to Marac. The applicant also says that he is presently in employment and has been "informally offered" two promotions. He rejected those offers as he thought that to do otherwise would "place my employer's reputation and my employment itself at a risk". Further, his employer has also offered him finance for housing on favourable terms; he cannot accept it because of his bankruptcy. Mr. A.H. Carrick, as acting Official Receiver, has provided a report in which it is said that the statement of affairs disclosed total assets of $2,330 and unsecured creditors totalling $70,153.09. The report says that the applicant is 26 years old, that he was in employment until early 1986 and returned to Australia in March 1986. The report further says that from' June 1986 to September 1986 he operated on his own account as a financial consultant under the name of Total Property Services, the business having a turnover commencing at about $100 per week and increasing to a maximum of $750 per week. The report says that the bankrupt claims to have bought two houses in the inner city area with one McPherson in 1983 and 1984 respectively. As to the former, Marac lent him money to make renovations and is owed over $13,000 on that account. The second house was sold in September 1986 at a loss. The report also says that in 1984 the applicant leased two Mercedes Benz motor cars (in succession). The first one was wrecked leaving a deficiency of $5,000 owing to me cence po re ee et wows fy ~ me ene Be er eee ae ere coos > « . er! v4, L the financier, anda sum of over $20,000 was due to Marac in respect of the second one. The applicant made a further affidavit commenting on the report and denying that a sum of §5,000 was due in respect of the first Mercedes Benz I have mentioned. There is a deal of other information before the Court, for example, setting out in more detail the circumstances relating to the sale of one of the motor cars and attempts to make an arrangement with the creditors. It does not seem necessary to recount that evidence in detail. The applicant's case is that the causes of his bankruptcy were a substantial period of unemployment, the unreasonable attitude of Marac as a creditor and the failure of one Sweeney to pay a sum of $8,000 due, that sum being referred to above. I find it difficult to assess the veracity of that assertion, but am of opinion, on the whole, that the factors mentioned cannot be the entire explanation. The applicant is a young man with no responsibilities other than his own maintenance. He has earned substantial sums. Accepting that ill fortune contributed substantially to his failure, the fact remains that a year ago, according to his statement of affairs, he owed about $70,000 and had no significant assets. No dividend is to be paid. It is necessary to strike a balance between, on the one hand, unduly prolonging bankruptcy and thus causing the bankrupt unnecessary hardship and, on the other, granting early discharges in such a way as to create the impression that to incur [eee ene en ee — weer yy oe eR eeg me ~ 4 om ye - s, oo substantial debts which cannot be paid is a light matter. It appears to me unfortunate that the continuation of the applicant's bankruptcy may embarrass him and impede the pursuit of his present career but, in the whole of the circumstances, I have come firmly to the view that he has not shown cogent ground for the exercise of the discretion in his favour. The application will he dismissed. t Certify that this and the S preceding Pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of His Honour Mr. Justice Pincus EP Associate Dated 4 December i987 Siaievaninaaanl rary a Bonpemen meee