Wilson, in the matter of Wilson v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] FCA 1041

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wilson, in the matter of Wilson v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] FCA 1041 COSTS – application to vary orders for costs – nature of the interests of respondents to an application for the annulment of sequestration orders Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) IN THE MATTER OF ERNEST ARTHUR WILSON AND PATRICIA LORRAINE WILLIAMS ERNEST ARTHUR WILSON AND ANOR v OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY AND ANOR N 8139 OF 1999 EMMETT J 18 JULY 2000 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 8139 OF 1999

BETWEEN: ERNEST ARTHUR WILSON

APPLICANT

PATRICIA LORRAINE WILLIAMS

SECOND APPLICANT

AND: OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY

FIRST RESPONDENT

DONALD WIGGINS AND KEVIN ROBINSON

ESTATE OF AUSTIN AND RENE WIGGINS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE: 18 JULY 2000

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 9 December 1999 I decided an application filed on 14 October 1999 seeking the annulment of sequestration orders made against the applicants (Wilson v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [1999] FCA 1760). For the reasons that I delivered on that day I ordered that the application be dismissed. The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy had been represented by counsel. For part of the proceedings the respondents, the petitioners, had also been separately represented by counsel. However, counsel for the petitioners sought to be excused during he course of the proceedings after I had made rulings on objections to affidavits. The petitioners were successful in those objections. 2 After I gave my reasons for dismissing the application, counsel for the Official Trustee sought an order for costs and also indicated that he had been asked by counsel for the petitioners to seek an order for the costs of the petitioners' limited involvement in the proceedings. I indicated that I was not disposed to make an order in relation to the petitioners' costs. The petitioners have now sought to be heard in relation to the question of their costs and have asked that I vary the order for costs by ordering that the applicants pay the costs of all of the respondents. 3 The petitioners were joined as parties to the application and they were properly joined. However, it has not been suggested to me that the interests of the Official Trustee and the petitioners in relation to the question of annulment were in any way inconsistent. 4 I have been taken to some correspondence that preceded the hearing. On the view that I have formed, I do not consider that it is relevant. Nevertheless, I will say something about it. On 1 October 1999 the Official Receiver wrote to the solicitors for the petitioners. In that letter the Official Receiver, inter alia, said as follows: "Please find enclosed a copy of my letter of even date to Mr Wilson and Ms Williams which speaks for itself. I have also enclosed a copy of the Orders made by Neaves J. on 23rd April 1986 when he made a Sequestration Order against Mr Wilson after he (Wilson) admitted on oath that he was indebted to your clients in excess of $20,000.00 ………………………