Frigger v Trenfield (No 8) [2024] FCA 1438

Frigger v Trenfield (No 8) [2024] FCA 1438

The applicants failed to establish any basis for setting aside the sequestration orders on the ground of fraud; no fraud or error of principle was shown in the making of the sequestration orders. The applicants did not cooperate with the trustee, failed to prove any surplus of property divisible among creditors after payment of debts and expenses, or make arrangements for creditor payment. The application is dismissed.

Parties
First Applicant: Angela Cecilia Theresa Frigger; Second Applicant: Hartmut Hubert Josef Frigger; First Respondent: Kelly Trenfield; Second Respondent: Mervyn John Kitay; Prospective Respondent: Herbert Smith Freehills
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Sequestration Orders / Annul Bankruptcy / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Sequestration Orders, Annulment of Bankruptcy, Fraud in Bankruptcy Proceedings, Discretion to Make Sequestration Order, Bankruptcy Act S 153 B, Certificate of Assessment, Costs Assessment, Trustee's Duties
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Sequestration Orders Annulment of Bankruptcy Fraud in Bankruptcy Proceedings Discretion to Make Sequestration Order Bankruptcy Act S 153 B Certificate of Assessment Costs Assessment +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Cecilia Theresa Frigger

First Applicant

Hartmut Hubert Josef Frigger

Second Applicant

Kelly Trenfield

First Respondent

Mervyn John Kitay

Second Respondent

Herbert Smith Freehills

Prospective Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Sequestration Orders / Annul Bankruptcy / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sequestration orders made against Mr and Mrs Frigger in 2018 should be set aside on the basis of fraud
  2. 2 Whether the bankruptcies of Mr and Mrs Frigger should be annulled under s 153B Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether alleged fraud by Mr Kitay or others was established

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish any basis for setting aside the sequestration orders on the ground of fraud; no fraud or error of principle was shown in the making of the sequestration orders. The applicants did not cooperate with the trustee, failed to prove any surplus of property divisible among creditors after payment of debts and expenses, or make arrangements for creditor payment. The application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.