Re Petruk, A.R.A. v. Ex Parte Official Trustee & Anor [1985] FCA 182

PE: ANDY ROLF ANTHONY FETRUK (also known as ANDY ROLF ANTHONY BATES) A Bankrupt EX PARTE: THE OFFICIAL TPUSTEE Applicant and ELIZABETH MARIA PETRUK Respondent Bx PARTE: THL OFT LCIAL TRUSTEE Applicant and ANDY ROLF ANTHONY PETRUK Respondent

These applications for committal for contempt of court arise from the public examinations of a bankrupt pursuant to s.69

of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 ('the Act') and of the wife of the

These examinations were being carried out by a Registrar until a point was reached on 6 May 1985 where, as I understand the position, the wife of the bankrupt refused to answer any further

questions after spending a total of some three days in the witness

pox. It appears that the bankrupt himself refused to answer questions after about two hours of examination. The Registrar then adjourned both examinations into Court on 7 May pursuant to ss. 69(5)(b) and &81(4) of the Act respectively. However no

reports were furnished to the Court pursuant to ss.69(6) or &81(5)

When the examinations resumed in Court on 7 May, counsel for the official trustee sought to put to the bankrupt, Mr Petrulk, the same question about his assets as had previously been put before the Feqgistrar and not answered. The question put was "How many windsurfers do you have?". Mr Petruk made a statement which amounted in substance to an explanation as to why he would not answer the question. After it became clear that he had no intention of answering the question, Mr Petruk, who Was unrepresented, was invited by the Court to return to the bar table and explain his refusal to answer in more detail, which he did. He was then warned by the Court of the possible sericus consequences of failing to answer a question when directed ts do so by the Court. He then returned to the witness box and the question "How many windsurfers do you own?" was put to him Fy the Court with a direction to answer. Mr Petruk again replied with a prepared statement. He next returned to the bar table and was asked to show cause why he should not be dealt with for contempt ef Court. He then spoke at length, the gist of his statement being that the bankruptcy proceedings were wholly invalid, were

the result of forged documents and had the ulterior motive cf

leading to his secret deportation, probably to South America.

A similar procedure occurred in the case of the bankrupt's wife, Mrs Petruk, who was also unrepresented. She was first asked by counsel for the official trustee the same question which had led to her refusal to answer any more questions before the Registrar. However this question only related to the confirmation of evidence which she had previously given, and the Court indicated that it would not be disposed to take any action over the refusal to answer a question of that nature. She was then asked a similar question to that which had been put to her husband, namely "How many windsurfers does your husband own?". In reply, like her husband, she made a prepared statement, the gist of which was that she would answer no further questions. She

persisted in her refusal to reply when directed by the Court to do

When asked to show cause why she should not be dealt with for contempt of Court, Mrs Petruk made a long statement raising many issues, the most important of which was that she had been unable to obtain legal representation. She claimed to have no substantial assets of her own, other than goods which had been seized by the official trustee, and to have been refused legal

aid. Like her husband, she relied also on the alleged invalidity

Because of the course I propose to take in this matter, and because much of what was said was quite irrelevant to the issues before'me, I do not set out the arguments of Mr and Mrs

Iam not prepared, in this hearing, to grant' the applications of Counsel for the official receiver. I recognize the very serious implications of the refusal by Mr and Mrs Petruk to answer the Court's questions. It is vital to the proper administration of bankrupt estates that people in their position should answer all proper questions put to them. It is not suggested that the question about windsurfers was in any way improper, The refusal, in each case, was to answer any question relating to assets, or otherwise touching on the question of bankruptcy. The particular question which led to the refusal to answer in each case was a simple one which should have caused no difficulty or embarrassment. I believe that, up to this point of

the necessary proofs, there is evidence to justify a finding of

However I am not prepared to proceed to a final decision in either case. I say this for several reasons. In the first place, having listened carefully to the long statement of Mr Petruk I have some doubt as to whether he is able to distinguish between reality and fantasy; he certainly appears to be obsessed with theories of conspiracy and with the possibility of secret deportation. Mrs Petruk appears to share some of these fears and possible obsessions and to be illogically upset about the confusion in the titling of some documents in the case - arising from her husband having, as I understand it, changed his name from