Carle v State of New South Wales [2025] FedCFamC2G 1549

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

1. This is an application for an extension of time within which to review a registrar's decision. On 12 March 2025, Registrar Schmidt ordered the sequestration of the estate of the applicant, Juan Carlo Carle. On 2 May 2025, Mr Carle asked this Court to review that decision of the registrar. The application was one month, or 30 days, late.
2. There is no argument that the Rules of this Court allow the applicant 21 days within which to file an application for review. Registrar Schmidt's actual order notes this in it.
3. The facts of the matter, in short, were that the applicant owed a debt to the provider of electricity, which, in effect, was the State of New South Wales. He did not pay that debt. The provider took him to the Local Court and the magistrate issued a judgment that the applicant owed the State of New South Wales a sum of $16,664.45. The applicant did not pay that, notwithstanding the Court's order, and so the State of New South Wales then issued a bankruptcy notice to the applicant. He did not pay that.
4. On 28 January 2025, the State of New South Wales filed a creditor's petition and served that on the applicant. The applicant did nothing about that creditor's petition and did not appear before Registrar Schmidt. Registrar Schmidt made the order, having been satisfied of the proof of the fact that the applicant had not paid the bankruptcy notice.
5. The applicant, as I have already said, filed this application out of time. Therefore, the application is an application for extension of time.
6. There are three aspects that a Court looks at in deciding whether to exercise the discretion to allow an extension of time within which to file. Those three matters are, not in any particular order: firstly, is there any prejudice to the respondent in the Court allowing such an extension; secondly, what excuse is there for the late filing or what is the reason for the failure to file within time; and, the third aspect is whether there is an arguable case for the relief sought.
7. In this matter, Mr Lane quite properly conceded that there is insufficient prejudice for the respondent if the Court were to extend the time and so therefore that matter does not trouble me any further.
8. The excuse as to why the applicant filed out of time has changed. When the matter came before me on 7 July, the applicant said that he was served and that he simply was in a state of mind, when one took into account his own idiosyncrasies and the stressors that were upon him, that he could not really truly comprehend the meaning of the matters that had been served upon him; that being the bankruptcy notice and the requirement for him to attend court on 12 March 2025.
9. He said that he filed his application late because he did not know that he had been made bankrupt and it was quite some time afterwards, because he could not do certain things, that he then looked through some of his papers and found the documents that he had been served and then realised what had happened.
10. I adjourned the application because I asked the applicant to get a psychiatric opinion that would give some proof as to the contention that the combination of his idiosyncrasies and the stressors upon which he was dealing combined to have him not appreciate what it was that was being given to him. In other words, that he had not actually properly been served.
11. When the matter came back before me today, the applicant resiled away from the fact that he was, to use his words, "crazy". He said that he did not need a psychiatric report and that he knew that that would cost him $10,000 and, really, to put it quite bluntly, there is very little chance of any psychiatrist saying that he could not comprehend what the papers were.
12. Realistically, he now says that he wilfully chose to ignore the problem, feeling that if he ignored the problem, it would go away. Having ignored it for so long, it was far too late to do anything and when he realised the sort of trouble he was in, he then came to the Court, notwithstanding that he was late.
13. But what he now claimed was contrary to other evidence.
14. In the affidavit of Nick Jim Coombes, that was filed on 15 August 2025, it was said that five days after the bankruptcy order was made, representatives of the trustee had a telephone interview with the applicant informing him that he had been made bankrupt because of the petitioning party, the State of New South Wales, and arrangements were made to get the administration of his estate underway.
15. This means that the claim that "it was too late for me to have filed within the 21-day time period" cannot be correct because the applicant was definitely informed of his bankruptcy 16 days before that time limit expired.
16. Therefore, there has not been shown any reasonable excuse as to why it is that the application was filed late.
17. With regard to whether there is an arguable case, the applicant simply kept reiterating that if he had been given more time, he could pay, and that he just wishes the bankruptcy to be lifted from him so that he could pay within time and that he had a payment plan. Unfortunately for the applicant, that ship has well and truly sailed. He has been given opportunities after opportunities, that being, firstly, going to the Magistrates Court; secondly, paying the debt after the Magistrates Court; thirdly, paying the bankruptcy notice; or fourthly, going to Court on 12 March this year.
18. Whilst one may feel some sympathy that there were quite a deal of stressors for the applicant, unfortunately, that is just life, and lots of people have problems at all times and do not try and use those unfortunate aspects of their own life to shirk, or run away from, their responsibilities.
19. The fact is that the applicant still cannot pay that debt, and simply kept saying to me, "if I had time, I would pay that debt".
20. As I explained to him, the act of bankruptcy means that he cannot pay his debts as they fall due, and everything he has said to me today, reinforces that inescapable inference.
21. That leads me to the conclusion that there is no arguable case for the substantial relief sought in the application for review.
22. Therefore, I refuse the application for extension of time within which to file the application for review against the registrar's decision.
23. The application is refused. It is an interlocutory application. The standard rate for an interlocutory application under the scale costs is about $4189. The applicant is only seeking $2500.
24. It is less than the scale amount, and I will make an order in that term.

I certify that the preceding twenty-four (24) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Vasta.