Nguyen v Corbett (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 890

Nguyen v Corbett (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 890

Consequential orders were appropriate because the make-available order was a proper remedy under s 37A and the Statute of Elizabeth principles, and because property made available by a voidable disposition may be used to satisfy all creditors, not only Mr Nguyen. Mrs Corbett should receive a short extension to file a pleaded Family Law Act cross-claim because the failure to comply with the earlier direction resulted from a misunderstanding and because any property settlement claim should conveniently proceed in this Court. A short stay of the sale-related orders was justified on pragmatic grounds until Mrs Corbett articulated her cross-claim and evidence, but a broader or longer stay was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Voidable Dispositions and Consequential Orders Under Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw), S 37 a and Proposed Family Law Act Property Settlement Cross Claim / Consequential Orders and Stay Applications After Final Orders Made on 12 April 2018
Outcome
Consequential orders made; extension of time to file cross-claim granted; sale-related orders stayed only until 5:00 pm on 25 July 2018 on undertaking; amended Notice of Motion otherwise dismissed; First Defendant ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs of the relevant applications.
Legal Topics
['voidable Dispositions' 'make Available Order' 'consequential Orders' 'receiver for Sale of Land' 'stay of Enforcement' 'family Law Act Property Settlement Cross Claim' 'appeal Pending Enforcement']

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

Equity Proceedings Concerning Voidable Dispositions and Consequential Orders Under Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw), S 37 a and Proposed Family Law Act Property Settlement Cross Claim / Consequential Orders and Stay Applications After Final Orders Made on 12 April 2018

  1. 1 ["Whether consequential orders should be made to give effect to the order that the Baulkham Hills property be made available to satisfy Mr Corbett's debts." 'Whether other creditors of Mr Corbett should be identified and their claims adjudicated before distribution of proceeds.' 'Whether a receiver should be appointed to sell the Baulkham Hills property.' 'Whether Mrs Corbett should receive an extension of time to file a cross-claim for property settlement orders under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).' 'Whether operation of the make-available and sale orders should be stayed pending determination of the proposed cross-claim.' "Whether operation of the 12 April 2018 orders should be stayed pending Mrs Corbett's appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

Consequential orders were appropriate because the make-available order was a proper remedy under s 37A and the Statute of Elizabeth principles, and because property made available by a voidable disposition may be used to satisfy all creditors, not only Mr Nguyen. Mrs Corbett should receive a short extension to file a pleaded Family Law Act cross-claim because the failure to comply with the earlier direction resulted from a misunderstanding and because any property settlement claim should conveniently proceed in this Court. A short stay of the sale-related orders was justified on pragmatic grounds until Mrs Corbett articulated her cross-claim and evidence, but a broader or longer stay was...

Court Disposition

Consequential orders made; extension of time to file cross-claim granted; sale-related orders stayed only until 5:00 pm on 25 July 2018 on undertaking; amended Notice of Motion otherwise dismissed; First Defendant ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs of the relevant applications.

Orders

  • ['Direct the plaintiff to place an advertisement in The Australian newspaper notifying creditors of James Edmund Corbett of the availability of the Baulkham Hills land to meet claims, requiring claims within 28 days, acknowledging claims within 14 days, making inquiries to verify claims, and referring disputed...