Burke v Stapleton [1970] HCA 3

Burke v Stapleton [1970] HCA 3

Section 98 (3) did not assist the appellants because the bankrupts' land had vested in the official receiver on sequestration and the title had been transmitted to the former official receiver within twenty years. The present official receiver, as successor trustee, did not need to make any claim to the land within the meaning of s. 98 (3), and merely resisting the appellants' application was not such a claim. Accordingly, the land was not deemed vested in the appellants and the application was rightly dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From an Order of the Federal Court of Bankruptcy Dismissing the Appellants' Application for Declaratory and Transfer Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['vesting of Bankrupt Property' "official Receiver's Title to Land" 'limitation on Trustee Claims to Land' 'real Property Act Registration']
['bankruptcy' 'real Property'] ['vesting of Bankrupt Property' "official Receiver's Title to Land" 'limitation on Trustee Claims to Land' 'real Property Act Registration']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From an Order of the Federal Court of Bankruptcy Dismissing the Appellants' Application for Declaratory and Transfer Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s. 98 (3) of the Bankruptcy Act barred the official receiver from asserting any estate or interest in land more than twenty years after sequestration.' "Whether land registered in the name of a former official receiver was deemed to be vested in the bankrupts' personal representatives under s. 98 (3)." 'Whether the present official receiver needed to make a claim to the land within the meaning of s. 98 (3) in order to administer or deal with it.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 98 (3) did not assist the appellants because the bankrupts' land had vested in the official receiver on sequestration and the title had been transmitted to the former official receiver within twenty years. The present official receiver, as successor trustee, did not need to make any claim to the land within the meaning of s. 98 (3), and merely resisting the appellants' application was not such a claim. Accordingly, the land was not deemed vested in the appellants and the application was rightly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']