FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Peng Yuan Gao, in the matter of the bankrupt estate of Yu Jing Zhu [2005] FCA 819 PENG YUAN GAO, IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF YU JING ZHU VID 635 OF 2004 NORTH J 30 MAY 2005 MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 635 OF 2004 PENG YUAN GAO, IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF YU JING ZHU JUDGE: NORTH J DATE OF ORDER: 30 MAY 2005 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application instituted by a notice of motion filed on 28 April 2005 is dismissed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 635 OF 2004 PENG YUAN GAO, IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF YU JING ZHU JUDGE: NORTH J DATE: 30 MAY 2005 PLACE: MELBOURNE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This application has been referred to the Court by a Registrar. The application was filed on 28 April 2005 by Mr Gao seeking orders as follows: 1. In pursuance of S77C of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, applicant has power to obtain information & evidence from any person or body related to bankrupt's assets in the bankruptcy. 2. The orders sought in outline of submission filed to the Court on 13/3/05 & 14/3/05. 2 Then there is a handwritten addition which says: The Court review decisions given by Mr Bardsley on 15/4/05. 3 Mr Gao appeared for himself on this application. The first thing I have to say is that although he has been on his feet for over an hour, I have been able to understand very little of what he said. That may be through no fault of his own. However, he speaks with a very strong accent which, in itself, is difficult to understand. I suspect, however, that more problematical is the lack of a clear development of the argument which he seeks to make. 4 I have been able to piece together from what he said and what was in the file that a Ms Zhu went bankrupt on her own petition in February 2002. It appears that oral examinations were conducted in relation to her affairs in November 2002 and May 2003. It seems that Mr Gao, who was a creditor, is unsatisfied with the examination. Mr Gao has sought to discover information relating to the estate of Ms Zhu by the attempted use of s 81 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). He apparently persuaded Finkelstein J, in November 2004, to order that he have leave to issue summonses under s 81 to the entities Mr Gao described as follows: Bank of Melbourne, Colonial First State, Hayes and Associates, Perpetual Trustee Co Limited, General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Australia and Evelyn Liaw. Then, on 3 February 2005, Finkelstein J further ordered that Mr Gao have leave to issue a summons under s 81 directed to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, as described by Mr Gao. 5 Mr Gao has filed a document entitled Outline of Submissions dated 13 March 2005, and three other short documents with the same heading dated 14 March 2005. The four submissions address the production made by Evelyn Liaw, General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Australia, Perpetual Trustee Co Limited and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. As best I can understand it, the documents suggest that the production in each case is inadequate. 6 In relation to Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd and in relation to the National Australia Bank, Mr Gao seeks leave under s 81 to serve a summons for production on each of those two companies so described. The difficulty that I have had in understanding Mr Gao means that I do not follow the reasons why he seeks a summons for the production of documents from Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd or the National Australia Bank. I am not satisfied, on the material which I have been able to understand, that the Court should exercise its power in favour of permitting such summonses to be issued. However, it is open to Mr Gao to make an application on material which can be more readily understood if there are grounds on which to issue summonses. In light of the difficulty in understanding Mr Gao's arguments, it would be desirable that if he wished to make such an application, that he set out in writing clearly the basis upon which he seeks the Court to exercise the power under s 81. 7 In relation to the remaining issues, that is to say, the production already made pursuant to summonses already issued, I have had a similar difficulty in understanding what Mr Gao is seeking to argue. However, I am satisfied that, at least in most cases, the material which he seeks is already covered by the existing summons. Consequently, there are no grounds for the Court to grant leave to issue further summonses. Rather, Mr Gao should take the necessary steps to enforce compliance with the existing summonses. As a result, he has not satisfied me that I should exercise any further power under s 81. The application instituted by a notice of motion filed on 28 April 2005 is dismissed. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North. Associate: Dated: 20 June 2005 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Date of Hearing: 30 May 2005 Date of Judgment: 30 May 2005