Wenkart v Pantzer (No 7) [2003] FCA 1211

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wenkart v Pantzer (No 7) [2003] FCA 1211 BANKRUPTCY – 'realisations charge' under Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Act 1997 (Cth) – whether that Act imposes realisations charge on monies received by a former trustee in bankruptcy after annulment of the bankruptcy by the operation of subs 74(5) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) upon passing of special resolution of creditors to accept a proposal by the bankrupt for composition or scheme of arrangement – whether answer differs according to whether circumstances giving rise to former trustee's entitlement occurred before or after the annulment.

Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Act 1997 (Cth) ss 6, 8

THOMAS RICHARD WENKART v WARREN PANTZER & ANOR N 7051 of 2002 LINDGREN J 30 OCTOBER 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 7051 of 2002

BETWEEN: THOMAS RICHARD WENKART

APPLICANT

AND: WARREN PANTZER

FIRST RESPONDENT

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: LINDGREN J

DATE OF ORDER: 30 OCTOBER 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The following questions which the Court, on 12 August 2003, ordered to be decided separately from any other question in the proceeding, be answered as follows: Questions: 'Does s 6(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Act 1997 (Cth) impose a charge in respect of amounts of the remuneration, costs, charges and expenses of Warren Pantzer ("Mr Pantzer") as trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of Thomas Richard Wenkart ("Dr Wenkart"), received by Mr Pantzer after the annulment on 15 March 2002 of Dr Wenkart's bankruptcy by force of subs 74(5) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth): (a) being amounts to which Mr Pantzer was or is lawfully entitled by reason of circumstances, all of which occurred prior to the annulment? (b) being amounts to which Mr Pantzer was or is lawfully entitled by reason of circumstances, all or some of which occurred after the annulment?' Answers: (a) No (b) No 2. The second respondent pay the applicant's and the first respondent's costs of the determination of the separate questions.