The applicant, who was the wife of the bankrupt individual in Harksen v Lane NO & Others, was unsuccessful in her attempt to contest the validity of sections 64 and 65 of the Insolvency Act, which permit the questioning of witnesses. Goldstone J concluded that no creditor could legitimately object to being called as a witness under these sections. Mrs. Harksen's complaint was related to inquiries about her own properties and affairs. Since it is constitutionally valid to temporarily place the assets of a solvent spouse under the control of the Master or trustee, it follows that the solvent spouse cannot reasonably object to being questioned regarding their own assets and affairs, provided these are pertinent to the insolvent estate. Additionally, Goldstone J noted that the stipulation in section 65(1) that the presiding officer must reject irrelevant questions serves as an inherent restriction, meaning only questions relevant to the meeting's objectives, namely the affairs of the insolvent estate, may be asked. Consequently, the court determined that sections 64 and 65 of the Insolvency Act did not infringe on Mrs. Harksen's right to privacy. O’Regan J, in a minority opinion, concurred with the majority regarding this matter and remarked that it has long been established that the investigations conducted at creditors' meetings address the affairs of the insolvent in the broadest sense.
paraphrase:
No more successful was the applicant, the wife of the insolvent, in Harksen v Lane
NO& Others,15 in her challenge to the validity of sections 64 and 65 of the Insolvency
Act which also provide for the questioning of witnesses.16 Goldstone J held that ‘no
creditor could have a legitimate complaint to being called as a witness under sections 64 and 65 of the Act. Mrs Harksen’s complaint concerns her being questioned
about her own property and a¡airs. On the basis that it is constitutional to vest the
property of a solvent spouse temporarily in the Master or trustee, it follows that
the solvent spouse similarly can have no legitimate complaint to being interrogated
concerning his or her own property and a¡airs to the extent that they are relevant
to the insolvent estate.’17Goldstone J further pointed out that the proviso contained in section 65(1),‘ ...
Provided that the presiding o⁄cer shall disallow any question which is irrelevant
... ’constitutes a built-in limitation to the e¡ect that only questions relevant to the
purpose of the meeting, i.e. relevant to the a¡airs of the insolvent estate, may be
put to the person summonsed. Therefore, the court concluded that sections 64 and
65 of the InsolvencyAct did not violate Mrs Harksen’s right to privacy. O’Regan J,
in a minority judgment, agreed with the majority of the court on this issue,18 and
commented that it has long been recognized that the subject matter of the investigations which take place at creditors’meetings is the a¡airs of the insolvent taken in
the widest sense.
1 answer
1 answer