The High Court extended the bankruptcy periods of Michael and Carmel Grimes by five years, barring their automatic discharge until 5 November 2025. The order followed applications by the Deputy Official Assignee, who cited the bankrupts’ non-cooperation.
In a judgment delivered on 25 February 2021, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said both had failed to deliver statements of affairs and had not made full disclosure, contrary to their legal obligations. The five-year extension was under section 85A(4) of the Bankruptcy Act 1988. The judge said it brought the period to six years from the date of adjudication, comprising the statutory year and the additional five years.
The court also granted an ex parte application to change the applicant’s name in each case to reflect the appointment of a new Official Assignee. No costs order was made on those applications. The costs of the extension motions were ordered to be costs in the bankruptcy.
Neither respondent appeared at the hearing. Michael Grimes had emailed the court seeking, among other things, an adjournment, copies of documents, legal aid and a ruling against remote hearings. The judge said the motion papers had already been served and found no evidential basis for an adjournment. He said Grimes had not taken steps to pursue legal aid through the Legal Aid Board, and that the request to re-enter his application to show cause against the bankruptcy adjudication was outside the scope of these motions.
The judge rejected the claim that Grimes could not participate in a remote hearing, saying the factual basis had not been established. He also noted that a claim of sedation at an earlier listing had not been supported by a medical certificate. These observations concerned Grimes’s requests and the procedural history; the extension applications were decided on the court’s findings of non-cooperation and non-disclosure by both bankrupts.
The judgment said a five-year extension was appropriate in light of comparable cases, while noting that a longer period was not sought. It did not decide whether the legislation should allow further extensions where non-cooperation continues.