Hall v Inspector-General in Bankruptcy

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application by the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy. It concerns the renewal of the registration of a registered trustee pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ("the Act"). Prior to 16 December 2001, Robyn Lee Erskine was a registered trustee pursuant to the Act. By s 155D of the Act, she was entitled to have her registration as a trustee extended for a period of three years from 16 December 2001 if she applied in writing to the Inspector-General for the extension, before the registration expired, and paid the charges imposed by s 6 of the Bankruptcy Registration Charges Act 1997 (Cth). 2 Ms Erskine did not apply in writing before the registration expired. She applied in writing and paid the necessary charge on 20 December 2001. As a consequence, the Inspector-General was unable to extend her registration for a further period of three years. The reason for the late application was simple. By letter dated 22 November 2001 from the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia, Ms Erskine was informed that her registration as a Trustee in Bankruptcy was due to expire on 21 December 2001. She was advised, if she wished to extend her registration, to forward before that date a written application to the Inspector-General accompanied by the relevant fee. In due course, she complied with that letter. 3 The date of 21 December 2001 referred to in that letter was, of course, an error. It appears that it arose because of an administrative mistake within the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia. The Inspector-General has therefore applied for the exercise of the power in s 33(1)(c) of the Act, to extend the time limited by s 155D. It appears that there is no difficulty in the Court extending the time limited by s 155D in the exercise of its power under s 33(1)(c). This was done by Dowsett J in Hall v Inspector-General in Bankruptcy (16 October 1998, unreported) at 2; again by Dowsett J in Milner v Inspector-General in Bankruptcy (16 October 1998, unreported); by Finkelstein J in Cornell v Inspector-General of Bankruptcy [2000] FCA 1497 (2000) 105 FCR 146 at [2]; and by North J in Re Inspector-General in Bankruptcy (5 July 1999, unreported). Because of the circumstances in which the error arose, there is every reason to grant the extension of time on the application of the Inspector-General. 4 An order is also sought in terms that upon the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy exercising the power conferred by s 155D of the Act to extend the registration of Ms Erskine, such registration be renewed for a period of three years effective from 16 December 2001. I had some concerns, not only as to whether such an order was necessary in the light of the terms of s 155D, but also whether the Court has the power to make an order in such terms. I note, however, that in each of Hall, Milner, Cornell and Re Inspector-General in Bankruptcy an order in those terms was made. A brief examination of the reasons for judgment of Dowsett J in Hall suggests that the reason for making such an order is to ensure continuity in the administration of the estates administered by the trustee, a matter which is of some concern and which perhaps ought to be settled. In the light of those authorities I am prepared to make such an order. 5 For these reasons then, the Court orders as follows: 1. That the time limited by s 155D(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 for Robyn Lee Erskine to apply to the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy for an extension of her registration as a trustee be extended until 20 December 2001. 2. That upon the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy exercising the power to extend the registration of Robyn Lee Erskine, such registration be extended for a period of three years from 16 December 2001.