A person goes voluntarily bankrupt in Australia by completing an online “Bankruptcy Form” with the Official Receiver. What is now more a loosely worded opaque techno process has been criticised by a Judge as containing a “presumptuous statement, “I am voluntarily becoming bankrupt” and a presumptuous question, “What do you believe is / are the cause(s) of your insolvency?”, with the “Form” in that matter then being sent off to Adelaide, where “exactly what happened upon its receipt there is, on the evidence, something of a mystery”.
In Re-naming rights of the bankruptcy regulator | Murrays Legal, I was critical of the delegated legislative authority exercised by AFSA to create its own forms and impose its own terms and conditions on legal processes. While some changes have been made to rename unclear or inconvenient legal words in the Act, others have been to add requirements not required by the law. The example was the ‘declaration of intention to present a debtor’s petition’ under s 54A of the Bankruptcy Act which AFSA has re-named as a ‘temporary debt protection’ ‘form’ – a TDP. One has to apply to AFSA for a copy. Section 54A serves to stay creditor claims for 21 days.
And with many bankruptcy forms, they are online; one has to apply to AFSA for a copy. Section 6D of the Bankruptcy Act, which allows the Inspector-General to create approved forms in wide terms, appears to be the authority.
The Bankruptcy Form
In a recent annulment matter, Thompson v Lane (No 3),[1] another renaming effort, the “Bankruptcy Form”, by which the debtor’s bankruptcy came into effect, was in issue. The bankrupt claimed that her debtor’s petition “ought not to have been accepted by the Official Receiver” in terms of s 153B(1).
In the words of Justice Logan, AFSA has
“evolved the debtor’s petition and the related statement affairs contemplated by s 55 of the Bankruptcy Act into a composite document termed the “Bankruptcy Form””.
This term refers not to any of the many forms issued by AFSA under the Act but to what appears to be a composite document of the petition under s 55(1), and the statement of affairs under s 55(2).
Section 6D seems to allow changes in the nature of delegated legislation, even dark law, It might not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but it is subject to judicial scrutiny.
Going bankrupt
As to the statute law, when a person “presents”[2] a petition to go bankrupt under s 55(1) of the Bankruptcy Act, there are supposed to be a number of steps taken to ensure that the process of “acceptance” and then endorsement by the Official Receiver under s 55(4A), whereupon the debtor becomes “bankrupt”, do not happen without scrutiny. Once those steps are completed, the debtor is then deemed to have become a bankrupt “at the first instant” of that day: s 57A. When a bankruptcy actually “commences” is determined by s 115(2).
Those steps comprise a number of precautionary bases upon which the Official Receiver is authorised not to accept a debtor’s petition. Bankruptcy is a serious legal step and there have been instances of persons going bankrupt by mistake, or without realising its implications, or through duplicity.
In this case, Justice Logan pointed out that the steps imposed by the law are not evident in the online Bankruptcy Form process.
Presumptuousness
There is no statement by the debtor that they present their petition under section 55 of the Bankruptcy Act.[3]
“Instead, the current [form] contains the presumptuous statement, “I am voluntarily becoming bankrupt”.[4]
“Yet further, it contains a presumptuous question, “What do you believe is / are the cause(s) of your insolvency?” without eliciting a prior admission of insolvency by reference to the position disclosed on the “statement of affairs” portion of the form”.
Further, the Bankruptcy Form was sent off to the office of AFSA in Adelaide.
“Exactly what happened upon its receipt there is, on the evidence, something of a mystery. … All that can be determined on the evidence as to the fate of the Bankruptcy Form submitted to the AFSA is that, inferentially, it was accepted by an Official Receiver, because on 1 July 2021, Mr Lane was appointed by an Official Receiver as the trustee of Ms Thompson’s bankrupt estate”.
That is rather alarming. The date of acceptance and endorsement of the petition determines important time limits under the Act.
Justice Logan harked back to the days of the registrar in bankruptcy, one of whose roles was to accept debtor’s petitions. That changed, in 1996, from a legal process to a management/technology process. But the legal requirements of presentation, acceptance and endorsement under the Act remained throughout.
As the Judge said, bankruptcy still involves a change in status and particular restrictions, the breach of which may be attended with penal consequences.
The government’s current reform proposals ensure that.
Cause for dismay
In the end, in this case,
“however much there may be cause for dismay in relation to what this case has revealed in relation to contemporary debtor’s petition law and practice, I do not consider this to be a case where a debtor’s petition “ought not to have been accepted” in terms of s 153B”.
The annulment application was dismissed.
ASIC guidance
ASIC now has its own s 6D, in the form of s 100-6 – Approved forms – of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations), which it uses: Insolvency forms – Updated for restructuring and simplified liquidation processes | ASIC – Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
More soon.
===================
[2] Purden Pty Limited v Registrar in Bankruptcy [1982] FCA 127
[3] While Justice Logan had access to the form, it is not generally available. As AFSA advises, “The statement of affairs is contained in a form known as the Bankruptcy Form. Section 54 of the Bankruptcy Act still references the term statement of affairs and references to a statement of affairs in this practice document can be taken to mean the Bankruptcy Form. A bankrupt may complete their statement of affairs online through AFSA’s Online Services portal. Alternatively, if a bankrupt cannot complete the form online, they can obtain a paper copy by contacting AFSA on 1300 364 785 or at info@afsa.gov.au”.
[4] Apart from being presumptuous, it is ungrammatical and imprecise.
3 Responses
How true. Why can’t. Bankruptcy Form be called a Statement of Affairs?
There is no transparency of actions of delegates to make these decisions in name if the Ifficual Receiver.
Finally the Official Receiver does not appoint the trustee. By s 156A a consenting trustee becomes trustee upon acceptance – ie administratively
Before even reading your article about the Application for Bankruptcy form, I came to the same conclusion as the judge you refer to who said: “What do you believe is / are the cause(s) of your insolvency?”, with the “Form” in that matter then being sent off to Adelaide, where “exactly what happened upon its receipt there is, on the evidence, something of a mystery”.
In a recent hearing, in my own Application for Annulment of Bankruptcy by the Court, the judge asked for a copy of the Application for Bankruptcy. I had to write to AFSA and ask for a copy of it.
This got me thinking. Why did I have to ask for it and why was a finalised copy of it not sent back to me at the time of my application?
I read through the form as I had forgotten a lot. I was asking myself why was this so easy? I must have had to provide my driver’s licence! But no, I did not have to provide any ID at all. The only thing to ensure the applicant was bona fide was the threat of imprisonment at the end of the form for lying. And how was AFSA to verify that?
So I asked myself what procedures were in place subsequent to AFSA receiving the form. I applied my knowledge of a range of procedures in HR designed to ensure fairness and thoroughness. Was the form vetted by one person or a group?
I noted that I had to provide details of a ‘friend’ who doesn’t live with me. It was the name of a close friend who’s known me since I was a teen. She had never been contacted.
The form asks if the applicant has consulted a lawyer or accountant but never contacts them. Such a generalised question. I ‘discussed’ it with my lawyer but never got any advice one way or the other. But I consulted with him!
A signature is not required. The applicant doesn’t have to get a live signature witnessed.
With the range of multi-choice questions. If you don’t fit into one category on the form then you must fit into another category, so the applicant picks the closest. And there are little boxes for you to put your recent, disastrous life history into, in summary of course.
Given the ease of filling out the form, late at night as it was in my case, extremely distressed perhaps, completed in 20 minutes, one must ask why is this light-weight form the entry point to such a serious process ahead. It’s one thing laughing at the other. If only the annulment was just as easy.
A section of the Act stipulates that annulment can be decided by the Court if it can be demonstrated that the Application for bankruptcy should not have been accepted. However, it also states that annulment can be effected if the Application should never have been lodged in the first place. The latter describes me and probably many others.
I came to my own conclusion that nothing much stops an application being accepted by AFSA. In fact, I’d be interested to see the stats. How many does AFSA reject? Probably none.
This form is significant for what it does not include and the apparent lack of scrutiny and process after it lands in AFSA’s inbox. It is a disgraceful form, in its design, convenience, brevity, familiarity and lacks the serious after-process. It does a huge disservice to applicants and the legal system in general.
Addendum: The form is also notable for what it does not include. Unless there are publicly available figures from AFSA on the number of applications for annulment and the number that are not accepted by the Official Receiver, and we can see a percentage, I make the reasonable prediction that there are no rejections by the Official Receiver. This begs the question: what would be the nature of a form completed by an Applicant for the Official Receiver to reject it? The wording of section 153B(1) of the Bankruptcy Act “that the Petition….ought not to have been accepted by the Official Receiver” is a total nonsense.