I want to ask about the procedure being used here. It seems to me to be very complicated procedure —"Property subject to restraint order dealt with by Official Assignee." Section 25 (1) reads:
Without prejudice to the generality of any provision of any other enactment, where—
(a) the Official Assignee or a trustee appointed under the provisions of Part V of the Bankruptcy Act, 1988, seizes or disposes of any property in relation to which his functions are not exercisable because it is for the time being subject to a restraint order, and
(b) at the time of the seizure or disposal he believes, and has reasonable grounds for believing, that he is entitled (whether in pursuance of an order of the court or otherwise) to seize or dispose of that property,
he shall not be liable to any person in respect of any loss or damage resulting from the seizure or disposal except in so far as the loss or damage is caused by his negligence in so acting, and he shall have a lien on the property, or the proceeds of its sale, for such of his expenses as were incurred in connection with the bankruptcy or other proceedings in relation to which the seizure or disposal purported to take place and for so much of his remuneration as may reasonably be assigned for his acting in connection with those proceedings.
Surely if somebody seizes property in error but not in negligence, if the official assignee or a trustee appointed under the provisions of Part V of the Bankruptcy Act seizes or disposes of property believing himself to be doing the right thing, he should not be indemnified under this section. If somebody seizes my car and finds they have made a mistake, then say they are sorry, that it was not No. 192 they meant to call to but rather 198, but the car has been damaged when it was being taken away, surely such action should not be indemnified. In justice a person who has incurred a loss that he should not have incurred should be reinstated to the position he or she was in before such action took place. Perhaps the Minister would tell me whether I am correct in reading the subsection in the way I am. If I am correct in my reading would she agree with me that an innocent person should not suffer in any way, the State should not indemnify itself or its agents against any claims by innocent persons to have themselves reinstated to their former position?
