Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment & Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1463

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment & Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1463 MOHINDER SINGH v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORK RELATIONS and OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY

VID 571 OF 2008

GOLDBERG J

29 SEPTEMBER 2008

MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 571 of 2008

BETWEEN: MOHINDER SINGH

Applicant

AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORK RELATIONS

First Respondent

OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY

Second Respondent

JUDGE: GOLDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER: 29 SEPTEMBER 2008

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application filed by the applicant on 30 July 2008 including the application for interim relief be dismissed. 2. The Notice of Motion filed by the applicant on 25 August 2008 be dismissed. 3. The Notice of Motion filed by the second respondent on 8 September 2008 be dismissed. 4. The applicant pay the first and second respondents' costs of and incidental to the application and the said Notices of Motion. 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 571 of 2008

BETWEEN: MOHINDER SINGH

Applicant

AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORK RELATIONS

First Respondent

OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY

Second Respondent

JUDGE: GOLDBERG J

DATE: 29 SEPTEMBER 2008

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION 1 The applicant, Mohinder Singh, became bankrupt on 28 February 2008 as a result of a sequestration order made against his estate that day in this Court by Registrar Burns. The sequestration order was made on the petition of the first respondent, the Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations ("DEWR"), as successor to the Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services, filed on 16 October 2007. The petition was based on the applicant's failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice issued on 14 September 2007 which claimed that the applicant owed DEWR $36,066.20 for legal costs arising from a series of five proceedings in various courts in respect of which the applicant failed to pay costs ordered to be paid by him to DEWR. 2 On 30 July 2008 the applicant filed an application in which he sought annulment of the sequestration order pursuant to the provisions of s 153B alternatively s 153A of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). Those sections provide for the annulment of the bankruptcy of a bankrupt in certain circumstances. 3 The applicant also sought interim orders in the following terms: "1. That the Honourable Court set aside the orders of Weinberg J in VID 843/2006 and send the matter back to the respondent for recalculation of the compensation affected payments. The setting aside of the erroneous orders of Weinberg J will ultimately result in the consequent setting aside of the orders of the Full Federal Court and special leave to the High Court of Australia. 2. That the Respondent reimburse the $10,000 + $36,066.22 + $4,180 paid by myself in respect to the orders of bankruptcy to the Respondent. 3. Discretion of the Court for an order of damages." 4 The applicant filed a notice of motion on 25 August 2008 seeking to have Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (Victoria) Limited and Kevin Thomas Potter, previously of Wilson Potter Nicholson Lawyers and Consultants, joined as parties to the proceeding pursuant to s 22 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and O 6 r 8 of the Federal Court Rules. 5 On 8 September 2008 the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (as Trustee of the bankrupt estate of Mohinder Singh) ("the Official Trustee"), the second respondent, filed a notice of motion in which he sought: (a) dismissal of the applicant's application pursuant to s 153A of the Bankruptcy Actfor annulment of the sequestration order; (b) dismissal of the applicant's claim for interim orders that the Official Trustee reimburse the sums of $10,000, $36,066.22 and $4,180 paid by the applicant to the Official Trustee and the applicant's claim for an order for damages; pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act or alternatively O 20 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules on the ground that no cause of action was disclosed in respect of those claims. 6 When the proceeding came on for hearing the applicant and the respondents agreed that in addition to hearing and determining the notices of motion and the applicant's application for interim orders I should hear and determine the application by the applicant for final relief, namely annulment of the sequestration order or, more correctly, annulment of his bankruptcy. In those circumstances it became unnecessary to deal with the Official Trustee's motion for dismissal pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court Act or O 20 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules.