7 During Mr Watson's time at Condon Associates, he and Mr Condon were appointed, relevantly as:
· trustees in bankruptcy of each of 33 estates in bankruptcy;
· liquidators of each of nine companies the subject of court orders for winding up;
· liquidators of each of eight companies the subject of creditors' voluntary windings up;
· voluntary administrators of one company (Hiafargo Pty Ltd); and
· administrators under a deed of company arrangement in respect of each of 11 companies.
8 One aspect of the parties' separation was that Mr Watson agreed to resign all of his insolvency appointments, both bankruptcy and corporate, in favour of Mr Condon. While it was plain that this was what both parties wished to achieve, there were procedural complexities. The nature and circumstances of the appointments are diverse and different statutory regimes apply.
9 Mr Watson appeared by a solicitor on the record, Mr Graeme Vietch of Brock Partners. The Court indicated that it would be assisted if the solicitor for Mr Watson took an active role. Mr Vietch's response, as conveyed to the Court by the solicitor for Mr Condon, was that he was not able to do so. It is not clear what this meant. Perhaps it meant that Mr Vietch had not been put in funds by Mr Watson to take an active role having regard to the fact that it was Mr Condon, not Mr Watson, who had a commercial interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Perhaps it meant that Mr Watson had not left Mr Condon on amicable terms, and, beyond signing notices of resignation, Mr Watson was not willing to assist Mr Condon.
10 Be this as it may, it was disappointing that Mr Watson, as an officer of the Court for bankruptcy and liquidation purposes, should, through his solicitor, Mr Vietch, not have discharged his responsibility to assist the Court. In some cases it may be enough that a solicitor on the record provides documents while leaving the conduct of a proceeding to the solicitor for the other party, but this was not one of those cases.
11 To the extent necessary, I treated the present application as being made by Mr Watson as well as by Mr Condon, even though Mr Watson was named as a respondent and only expressed himself as resigning the relevant offices.
12 It is important to understand that according to the evidence, it was Mr Condon and Mr Watson who sought the appointment of themselves as co-trustees, co-liquidators, co-administrators and co-deed administrators in relation to the appointments referred to at [6]-[7] above. In no case did anyone else, such as creditors or a Court, insist on the appointment of two persons. I am satisfied that one rather than both of them might just as easily have been appointed, and that it was immaterial that two had in fact been appointed.
13 Affidavit evidence showed that Mr Condon and Mr Watson sought the appointment of them both in order to cover the position when one or other of them might be absent from the office on leave or for any other reason. I infer that they performed their functions and exercised the powers associated with the various offices as if their appointments had been joint and several.
14 Affidavit evidence also showed that the staff at Condon Associates who were handling the various bankruptcies, corporate insolvencies, voluntary administrations and administrations under deeds of company arrangement during Mr Watson's time with Condon Associates, had continued to do so following his departure under the supervision of Mr Condon alone. In view of Mr Watson's departure and Mr Condon's possession of all relevant files, it was difficult to see any practicable alternative to Mr Condon's filling the various offices alone.
15 I was satisfied on the evidence to which I have referred that it would be wasteful and inconvenient for the various groups of creditors to be consulted. The cost of ascertaining their wishes would be borne out of the assets constituting the various estates in bankruptcy or the assets of the various companies the subject of external administration, as the case may be.
16 There was evidence that the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia (ITSA) and ASIC had been notified of the application and had indicated that they did not wish to be heard in opposition to it.
17 In view of all the circumstances referred to above, I was of the opinion that it was in the interests of creditors that the Court should, if possible, facilitate Mr Condon's continuing to occupy each of the offices in question alone.