Osborne v Gangemi (No 2) [2011] FCA 1278

Pattison's undertaking appeared to have impliedly revoked his consent to act as trustee of Gangemi's estate as of 8 July 2011. Because Cant, a registered trustee, had consented to act and the sequestration order had been pronounced, s 156A(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) operated to appoint Cant, not Pattison, as trustee of Gangemi's estate. There was utility in declaring that appointment.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 04 November 2011
Procedural Posture: Bankruptcy Proceeding / Application for Declaration Following Sequestration Order
Outcome: Declaration made.
Legal Topics: ['appointment of Trustee of Bankrupt Estate' 'consent to Act as Registered Trustee' 'sequestration Order' 'declaratory Relief']

['bankruptcy' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['appointment of Trustee of Bankrupt Estate' 'consent to Act as Registered Trustee' 'sequestration Order' 'declaratory Relief']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Proceeding / Application for Declaration Following Sequestration Order

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether Anthony Robert Cant was appointed trustee of the estate of Antonio Gangemi by force of s 156A(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).' "Whether the Court should declare that Anthony Robert Cant was appointed trustee of Gangemi's estate."]

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Declaration made.

Orders

['Anthony Robert Cant was on 4 November 2011 appointed as the trustee of the estate of Antonio Gangemi.']