Turner v Gorkowski [2014] VSCA 248
Whether application seeking a declaration for or against the title of the trustee to a trustee in bankruptcy under s 58(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) is a ‘special federal matter’ within the meaning of s 6(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting Act) 1987 (Cth).
On appeal, the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal transferred a proceeding initiated in the Supreme Court to the Federal Court.
Di Cioccio v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2014] FCA 782
Examination of whether shares purchased from a bankrupt’s income below the threshold amount in respect of which he was required to make contributions to his trustee under Division 4B of Part 6 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966(Cth) is within the meaning of “after acquired property” in s 58(1).
A bankrupt trustee has been unsuccessful in trying to recover property of a former bankrupt more than 20 years after the date of bankruptcy. The decision of the Federal Court reinforces the limitation period in which a trustee can make a claim on any property of the bankrupt as outlined in Section 127(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act)
I INTRODUCTION
The ultimate aim of the Bankruptcy Act 1996 (Cth) is to provide a fair and orderly process for the administration of the affairs of a debtor. In many circumstances the debtor may attempt to avoid his obligations to some or all of his creditors. The Bankruptcy Act recognises this and has long had provisions which empower trustees in bankruptcy to recover certain assets of a bankrupt. The two types of powers given to the trustee are where:
In many bankruptcies the trustee is without funds to undertake litigation for the benefit of the bankrupt estate. In some cases a creditor is willing to indemnify the trustee in respect of the costs of such litigation where there are strong prospects of a successful conclusion with sufficient funds realised to distribute a dividend to creditors.
The High Court of Australia recently decided that when a landlord goes into liquidation, the liquidator may be able to disclaim a lease granted by the landlord.
For a tenant there can be very serious and very expensive consequences if a lease it has taken is disclaimed by its landlord’s liquidator.
A tenant may, however be able to take some steps to protect itself and avoid the expensive and significant consequences of a disclaimer of a lease by the landlord’s liquidator.
What does disclaim mean?
The NSW Court of Appeal recently confirmed that the bankruptcy of a personal trustee or appointer of a family trust does not affect the protection afforded to the family trust assets by the trust structure.
The recent decision of Lewis v Nortex Pty Limited (in liquidation)1 highlights potential issues that may arise for liquidators when issuing a bankruptcy notice.
Facts
Nortex Pty Ltd (Nortex) was the trustee of the Nortex Unit Trust (Trust) pursuant to a deed. Under the terms of the trust deed, Nortex ceased to be trustee when the company went into liquidation. The beneficiaries of the trust were Kation Pty Ltd (Kation) which was controlled by the appellant (Lewis) and Lamru Pty Ltd (Lamru).
In an important decision for the large number of discretionary trusts in Australia, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has considered whether a family trust structure is a sufficiently robust firewall to protect the family trust assets against claims by a trustee in bankruptcy appointed to the personal Trustee or Appointor of a family trust.
The decision is Lewis v Condon; Condon v Lewis [2013] NSWCA 204 which was handed down on 4 July 2013 by the Court of Appeal.
On the occurrence of bankruptcy, the trustee must take immediate possession or control of the bankrupt’s property, as that property is now “available” to the trustee for the benefit of creditors generally and vests in the trustee for that purpose. However, a bankrupt may not always co-operate with his or her trustee and will often refuse to deliver up property to the trustee or even allow the trustee on to the premises where the property is held.
A relevant example