Vats v Cummings

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Dr Vats filed an originating application on 20 January 2015 seeking relief which was wide ranging connected with his bankruptcy. A sequestration order was made in respect of his estate, and he sought review before the Federal Circuit Court of the making of that order. On 13 August 2014, Judge Burchardt refused the application. 2 A number of the claims made in the originating application seem to relate to steps taken in the course of the bankruptcy. Dr Vats makes complaint, for instance, about the requirement or the insistence on the requirement that he complete a statement of affairs. 3 He continues to challenge the making of the sequestration order at first instance by Registrar Caporale, and complains against the respondent, the trustee of his estate, that he, Dr Vats, was put under duress to coerce him to make a statement of affairs. He claims compensation for the consequences of the trustee's actions. 4 However, when the matter was mentioned, the primary purpose of the application was outlined to relate to the refusal by the trustee to consent to Dr Vat's application to travel overseas between 15 January and 28 January 2015. 5 The application seeks compensation of $27,000, including $7,000 for travel expenses which apparently were lost, and he also claimed a restoration of his right to travel overseas. 6 In support of the application was a short affidavit which criticised the trustee in relation to the refusal of the right to travel overseas and also asserted that there was an outstanding issue concerning his solvency. He insisted on a refusal to complete a statement of affairs until the matters is settled by the Full Federal Court and the High Court. 7 So far as the application is comprehensible, it appears to be an application to review a decision of the trustee made on 14 January 2015 to refuse Dr Vat's consent to travel overseas. That part of the application is without any utility, because the application by Dr Vats and, consequently, the decision in response concern travel in a period which ended on 28 January 2015, a date which is now passed. 8 No decision of the Court upsetting the trustee's decision in that regard would permit travel for a period which has expired. And in any case, no basis was shown on which to impugn the decision of the trustee. Dr Vats' capacity to travel in the future should be tested by a further application to the trustee and, in the event of a refusal, an application for review under s 178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). 9 In relation to the other claims for relief, Dr Vats has not provided any evidentiary basis for them. Nor has he satisfied the Court that there is a jurisdictional basis for the relief which he claims. 10 Consequently, the application is dismissed. I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North.