ABL Nominees Pty Ltd v Trinick (Trustee) [2016] FCA 996

ABL Nominees Pty Ltd v Trinick (Trustee) [2016] FCA 996

The applicants were creditors with standing to apply. The trustee erred in limiting their voting value and failed to properly investigate relevant matters. Proper voting on the PIA would have resulted in its defeat. The PIA executed was thus set aside under s 222 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

Parties
First Applicant: ABL Nominees Pty Ltd; Second Applicant: Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited; First Respondent: Glenn Douglas Trinick as Trustee of the Personal Insolvency Agreement of David Martin Irvin; Second Respondent: David Martin Irvin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside a Personal Insolvency Agreement / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Personal Insolvency Agreement executed on 9 October 2015 set aside pursuant to s 222 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
Legal Topics
Personal Insolvency Agreement, Creditors' Rights, Assignment of Debts, Voting at Creditors' Meetings, Trustee Investigations, Section 222 Applications, Section 222 C Applications
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Personal Insolvency Agreement Creditors' Rights Assignment of Debts Voting at Creditors' Meetings Trustee Investigations Section 222 Applications Section 222 C Applications

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABL Nominees Pty Ltd

First Applicant

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited

Second Applicant

Glenn Douglas Trinick as Trustee of the Personal Insolvency Agreement of David Martin Irvin

First Respondent

David Martin Irvin

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside a Personal Insolvency Agreement / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants had standing as creditors to seek to set aside or terminate the PIA
  2. 2 Whether applicants should have been admitted to vote for the full face value of assigned debts
  3. 3 Whether certain creditors (Wideview Holdings, Mr Vartesi) should have been admitted to vote

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were creditors with standing to apply. The trustee erred in limiting their voting value and failed to properly investigate relevant matters. Proper voting on the PIA would have resulted in its defeat. The PIA executed was thus set aside under s 222 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Personal Insolvency Agreement executed on 9 October 2015 set aside pursuant to s 222 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

Orders

  • The parties be heard as to the appropriate orders in light of these reasons.