Inspector-General in Bankruptcy v Sam Pos Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1621
Sam Pos Pty Ltd and Simone Hildebrand are in default, having not complied with court orders or participated in proceedings. The pleaded facts establish breach of duty and breach of trust under the Bankruptcy Act and equitable principles. Orders for compensation and declarations are warranted by default judgment.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 06 December 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Default Judgment / Default Judgment After Non Compliance and Non Appearance
- Outcome
- Default judgment granted against first and second respondents for payment, declaration and costs; interlocutory application against third respondent adjourned.
- Legal Topics
- ['default Judgment' 'debt Agreement Administration' 'breach of Trust' 'equitable Compensation']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Default Judgment / Default Judgment After Non Compliance and Non Appearance
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether Sam Pos Pty Ltd breached statutory and equitable duties as debt agreement administrator by improper payment from trust account' 'Whether Simone Hildebrand was knowingly concerned in breach of trust by Sam Pos Pty Ltd' 'Whether orders for payment and equitable compensation should issue by default judgment']
Ratio Decidendi
Sam Pos Pty Ltd and Simone Hildebrand are in default, having not complied with court orders or participated in proceedings. The pleaded facts establish breach of duty and breach of trust under the Bankruptcy Act and equitable principles. Orders for compensation and declarations are warranted by default judgment.
Court Disposition
Default judgment granted against first and second respondents for payment, declaration and costs; interlocutory application against third respondent adjourned.
Orders
- ['The first respondent pay to the second applicant the sum of $1,130,877.63 together with interest in the sum of $40,311.91.' "The first respondent pay the applicants' costs of the proceeding against it." "It is declared that the second respondent was knowingly concerned in a breach of trust by the first respondent...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment