Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BANKRUPTCY – Powers of Registrar to make sequestration orders – whether Commonwealth has power to confer on Registrar, power to make sequestration orders on contested applications – whether such a delegation within constitutional competency of Commonwealth.
Judiciary Act 1903(Cth) s 78B
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976(Cth) s 35A
Bankruptcy Act 1966(Cth) s 30
Federal Court Rules O 77 r 7
Harris v Caladine (1990-91) 172 CLR 84
Cheesman v Waters (1997) 148 ALR 21
Taylor v Australian Taxation Office
QG 7121 of 1998
Dowsett J
Brisbane
29 October 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QG 7121 of 1998
BETWEEN: STEPHEN TAYLOR AND GLENDA TAYLOR
ApplicantS
AND: THE AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE
Respondent
JUDGE: DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER: 29 OCTOBER 1998
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for an extension of time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice is refused. 2. The application for an extension of time in which to apply for a review of Registrar's decision is allowed. 3. The application to have review of Registrar's decision determined by a jury is refused. 4. The application for review of Registrar's decision is refused. 5. The applicants are to pay the respondent's costs of these proceedings. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QG 7121 of 1998
BETWEEN: STEPHEN TAYLOR AND GLENDA TAYLOR
Applicants
AND: THE AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE
Respondent
JUDGE: DOWSETT J
DATE: 29 OCTOBER 1998
PLACE: BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT On 19 March 1998 at Townsville the applicants, Stephen Taylor and Glenda Taylor, were declared bankrupt upon the petition of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. Mr and Mrs Taylor were in court on that occasion. Although it does not appear from the material, it seems that they opposed the petition, although they do not seem to have objected to the jurisdiction of the Registrar who constituted the court. Shortly thereafter, they applied for numerous orders, including an extension of time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice upon which the petition was based, prohibition directed to the petitioning creditor and the Registrar preventing them from acting upon the sequestration order and for an order that the sequestration order be brought up to the Federal Court and quashed and damages. The matter came on before me some time ago, and it became obvious from what Mr Taylor said on behalf of the applicants that his primary point was that there could be no valid conferment of the power to make a sequestration order upon the Registrar. I, at that stage, formed the view that a constitutional question arose of the kind contemplated by s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903, and I adjourned the matter to enable appropriate notices to be given. Unfortunately, because the Taylors are unrepresented, the form of the notice which was given to the Attorneys and the evidence as to the giving of the notice, is a little unsatisfactory. However it seems probable that all of the Attorneys have received appropriate notices, that most of them have understood the point to be raised and that none wishes to intervene.
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