Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [1999] FCA 110 PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – disqualification for bias – claim that Judge had "direct pecuniary interest" – Judge has interest in trust holding shares in a corporation which is not a party, but which may obtain a financial benefit from the proceedings – whether Judge was disqualified. BANKRUPTCY – test for determining whether the bankrupt had the necessary intent to defraud creditors required by s 121 Bankruptcy Act – whether any distinction between existing or future creditors and "anticipated" creditors. BANKRUPTCY – principle that dispositions void under ss 120 and 121 Bankruptcy Act are avoided only insofar as necessary to satisfy the bankrupt's debts – whether this principle requires the Judge to determine claim by bankrupt disputing indebtedness to major creditor. WORDS & PHRASES: "direct pecuniary interest".
Bankruptcy Act 1883 (UK), s 47. Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss 40(1), 77C, 109(10), 120, 121, 134(1), 177(1), 178. Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (Cth). First Corporate Law Simplification Act 1995 (Cth), Sch 4. Corporations Law, s 221(1). Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41, cited. Re Webb; Ex parte Taylor (1987) 75 ALR 139, cited. Re Butler; Ex parte Taylor (1995) 57 FCR 499, cited. Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Wellcome International Pty Ltd (1998) 81 FCR 475 (FC), cited. Reg v Gough [1993] AC 646, discussed. In re Pinochet, unreported, House of Lords, 15 January 1999, distinguished. Reg v Rand (1866) LR 1 QB 230, cited. Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Canal Junction (1852) 3 HL Cas 759, distinguished. The Queen v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248, followed. Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth (1948) 76 CLR 1, cited. The Queen v The Industrial Court & Mount Isa Mines Limited [1966] Qd R 245, cited. Commercial Banking Co v Balgarnie (1864) 3 SCR(L) 27, cited. Ex parte Dalton (1876) 14 SCR(L) 277, cited. The King v Lowe; Ex parte Peterson [1912] St R Qd 138, cited. R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, cited. Reg v Hammond (1863) 9 LT 423, cited. Reg v Camborne Justices; Ex parte Pearce [1955] 1 QB 41, cited. R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendary Magistrate & Ors; Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; R v Bartle; Ex parte Pinochet [1998] 3 WLR 1456, discussed. Barton v The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1974) 131 CLR 370, cited. Cannane v J Cannane Pty Ltd (in liq) (1998) 153 ALR 163, cited. Hardie v Hanson (1960) 105 CLR 451, cited. Mackay v Douglas (1872) LR 14 Eq 106, cited. Ex parte Russell; In re Butterworth (1882) 19 Ch D 588, cited. Payne v McDonald (1908) 6 CLR 208, cited. Perpetual Executors & Trustees Association of Australia Ltd v Wright (1917) 23 CLR 185, cited. In re Sims; Ex parte Sheffield (1896) 3 Mans 340, discussed.
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