FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Official Assignee in Bankruptcy of the Property of James Adair Hanna v Hanna [2019] FCA 1934

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Shabnam Amirbeaggi (the receiver) be discharged as receiver of the Australian property of the respondent.

2.    The receiver be released from any liability arising out of her appointment as receiver of the bankrupt’s property.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GLEESON J:

1    On 23 October 2019, I ordered that Shabnam Amirbeaggi (Ms Amirbeaggi) be discharged as receiver of the Australian property of the respondent, Mr Hanna, and that Ms Amirbeaggi be released from any liability arising out of her appointment as receiver.

2    Ms Amirbeaggi applied for these orders by interim application filed 3 October 2019, supported by an affidavit which she affirmed on 1 October 2019.

Background facts

3    On 27 February 2018, the Court made several orders in connection with the bankruptcy of Mr Hanna, including the appointment of Ms Amirbeaggi as receiver to act on behalf of the applicant (Official Assignee) for the purpose of investigating, collecting and realising the current property and after-acquired property of Mr Hanna in Australia: Official Assignee in Bankruptcy of the Property of Hanna, in the matter of Hanna v Hanna [2018] FCA 156.

4    As more fully set out in her 1 October 2019 affidavit, Ms Amirbeaggi has undertaken tasks in discharge of her obligations as receiver. She has determined that the whole of Mr Hanna’s assets in Australia which may be collectable under the Insolvency Act 2006 (NZ) have been realised, collected and paid to the Official Assignee. Ms Amirbeaggi’s belief is there is no further benefit in her remaining appointed as receiver of Mr Hanna’s bankrupt estate.

5    Ms Amirbeaggi gave evidence that:

(1)    To the best of her belief, there has been no act done or default in the administration of the affairs of Mr Hanna’s estate or otherwise in relation to her conduct as receiver which is likely to give rise to any liability to Mr Hanna’s bankrupt estate or any creditor or third party.

(2)    She is not aware of any claim made by any person that there has been any such act or default.

Legal Principles

6    A court-appointed receiver may be discharged when the object of the appointment has been fully effected: Shannon (in his capacity as receiver and manager of North East Wiradjuri Co Limited v North East Wiradjuri Co Limited [2012] FCA 836 at [9].

7    The Court has the power, by making an order for release and discharge, to protect its officer, the receiver, from liabilities arising from acts done in the course of his duties: Inland Revenue Commissioners v Hoogstraten [1985] QB 1077 at 1094. In University of Western Australia v Gray (No 30) [2010] FCA 1063, Barker J made such an order after noting the receiver’s evidence that he was unaware of any claims against him in relation to his appointment as manager and receiver. In Refund Property Fees Pty Ltd v Prime Project Development (Cairns) Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 613, in the absence of threatened or foreshadowed claims and the compromise of claims made to date, Logan J made a similar order to operate unless any claim was instituted within three months of the date of the order.

Consideration

8    Ms Amirbeaggi’s evidence demonstrates that the objects for which the receiver was appointed have been achieved. On that basis, I accepted that it was appropriate that she be discharged from her appointment as receiver. Further, on the basis of the evidence to the effect that there is no real prospect that Ms Amirbeaggi may be the subject of any claim arising out of her conduct as receiver of Mr Hanna’s property, I accepted that she should be released forthwith from any liability arising out of the appointment.

Conclusion

9    Accordingly, I made orders in accordance with the orders sought by Ms Amirbeaggi.

Associate:

Dated:    20 November 2019