Re Kirton, Alan Douglas Ex Parte Kirton, Alan Douglas [1983] FCA 132

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

Ex parte: FRIEDA ALWIND ANNA MANNIGEL ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDERS: FITZGERALD J. DATE ORDERS MADE: 20 MAY 1983 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

2. Order (3) made on 12 October 1982 be varied to permit and provide for the adjournment to 20 May 1983 of the bankrupt's application for

An order sequestrating the bankrupt's estate was made by Wanstall CJ in the Supreme Court of Queensland exercising federal jurisdiction in bankruptcy on

10 June 1981 on the petition of Mrs Frieda Alwine Mannaigel.

The public examination of the bankrupty under s.69 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 ("the Act") commenced at 10.30 a.m. on 16 October 1981 and, little more than an hour later, was adjourned by the Registrar to enable the bankrupt to obtain some legal advice. On 29 January 1982, the Registrar ordered that the public examination be concluded without any further attendance before him by the

bankrupt. The petitioning creditor was represented by

counsel at the adjourned examination but, presumably through an oversight, was not notified before the Registrar made that order. She was notified in

On 23 April 1982, less than one year after the sequestration order in respect of his estate was made, the bankrupt applied under section 150 of the Act for an order of discharge. That application came beforc me for hearing. It was opposed by Mrs Mannigel, who was represented by counsel. In addition, Mrs Mannigc! sought summonses under s.81 of the Act directed to a numer of persons, one of whom was the bankrupt's wife, Mrs Diane Eileen Kirton, requiring those persons to attend before the Registrar and give evidence in respect of various

"1. Mrs Kirton, wife of the bankrupt, be summoned to attend before the Registrar on a date and at a time and place fined by the Registrar prior to the issue of the summons, to give evidence concerning and to produce any books, whether or not un existence at the time the bankrupt became a bankrupt, in her custody or power relating to her association with Concept Service Mart (Qld) Pty Ltd and the interest in that company held in her name and the circumstances surrounding her acquisition of that anterest and the bankrupt's involvement therein and more generally what, 1f any, connection exists between her, the bankrupt and/or Concept Service Mart (Qld) Pty Ltd with respect to

respective positions of herself and the bankrupt with that company and the interest held in her name in that company, but limited to information concerning the bankrupt or his trade dealings, property or affairs in accordance with section 81 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

3(a) The further hearing of the application for discharge be adjourned until after the conclusion of such examination and the furnishing as soon as possible thereafter of a further report 1n writing by the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy concerning the matter set forth in s.150(1i1) of the Bankruptcy Act.

(b) The application may be restored at any time thereafter by any party upon seven days notice in writing to the Registrar and the other parties represented 1n the proceedings before me, the date of the adjourned hearing to be fixed by the Registrar after consultation with me.

4. Mrs Mannigel's applications be otherwise dismissed.
5. Costs of all proceedings before me be

did not issue a summons directed to Mrs Kirton. From wnat I was told, 1t seems to have been thought that the formal step of a further application by Mrs Mannigel was an essential prerequisite to the issue of the summons despite the order of the court. As it turns out, the Registrar's omission to issue the summons is of little consequence. It 15s

obvious that, had Mrs Mannigel washed it, such a summons would

have been issued. No attempt was made by Mrs Mannigel to obtain

a summons or to serve it on the bankrupt's wife. It is apparent from evidence before me and from what I was informed from the bar table about when this matter was first before me that 1t has been made apparent to Mrs Mannigel's legal advisers that it was for her to have the bankrupt's wife summonsed if she was to have

In February this year, aftor a series of letters to Mrs Mannigel's solicitors indicating that, having regard to the failure of Mrs Mannigel to prosecute the examination of the bankrupt's wife, the bankrupt proposed to apply to be granted his discharge from bankruptcy forthwith, such an application was frled in the court on 11 February 1983, returnable on 12 April 1983, and was served on the Brisbane

agents of the solicitors for Mrs Mannigel on 17 February 1983.

A further report from the Official Receiver, as representative of the trustee of the estate of the bankrupt, was furnished but little was able to be added to what was previously known. It remains the position that there 1s no

The application came before me on 12 April 1983 when it was adjourned by me to 27 April 1983. There was no

"1. That the part of the order of his Honour Mr Justice Fitzgerald made at Brisbane on the 12th day of October 1982 that Mrs Kirton wite of the bankrupt be summonsed to attend before the Registrar to give evidence under section 81 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 be rescinded, varied or discharged. 2. For costs of and incidental to this application and those costs which have been reserved. 3. For such further or other order as the court deems fit." That application, supported by an affidavit by the bankrupt's wife, also came before me on 27 April 19383. On that day, Mrs Mannigel was represented by her Nowra solicitors Brisbane agents who had little by way of instructions. I adjourned the application to 16 May 1983 to permit them to obtain instructions as to whether the applications were opposed and, if they were, to permit a

date to be set for hearing. On 16 May they nad no instructions

To ensure that, whether deliberatcly or inadvertently, the bankrupt was not unduly delayed, I fixed a hearing for today, 20 May 1983. It is now more than a year since the bankrupt first applied for a discharge and more than 6 months since the application was adjourned to permit Mrs Mannigel to have the

bankrupt's wife examined. JI was informed this morning by a

solicitor from the Brisbane agents for Mrs Mannigel's

Nowra solicitor that the bankrupt's applications are no longer opposed. In the circumstances, I am satisfied with the evidence contained in the affidavit sworn by the applicant's wife and consider that it 1s inappropriate

that she should be required to give the evidence or produce

the documents referred to in the order made on 12 October 1982.

Bankruptcy Act, I discharge orders (1) and (2) made on

12 October 1982. Further, pursuant to the same sub-section, I vary order (3) made on 12 October 1982 to permit and provide for the adjournment to today of the bankrupt's application

I am satisfied on all the material that it is now appropriate to grant the bankrupt a discharge from bankruptcy

By the applications now before the court, the bankrupt asks that an order be made in his favour for the payment by Mrs Mannigel of the costs previously reserved and the costs of the current applications. lowever, before me this morning, the solicitors for the respective parties are agreed that it 1S appropriate that cach party should bear his

Further, no application is made for costs by the Official Receiver who appeared on behaif of the trustee of the estate of the bankrupt. In the

| certify that this and the bs precede pages ore atree copy ofthe reasonsfor Judgment here of His Honour