Pitman v Pantzer (Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Thomas Richard Wenkart) [2001] FCA 1742

Pitman v Pantzer (Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Thomas Richard Wenkart) [2001] FCA 1742

At this interlocutory stage, the Court has not determined the substantive issue but gives direction that the assignee of a debt in bankruptcy should obtain the court's leave to substitute proof, accepting the complexity highlighted in the authorities and inviting further submissions before resolution.

Parties
Applicant: Alan Pitman; First Respondent, Second Cross Respondent: Warren Pantzer (Trustee of the Estate of Thomas Richard Wenkart); Second Respondent, Cross Applicant: Throvena Pty Limited; Second Respondent, Cross Applicant: Hapday Holdings Pty Limited; Second Respondent, Cross Applicant: Macquarie Health Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceeding With Cross Claim / Interlocutory Direction Before Final Resolution of Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Matter stood over for further submissions and hearing; interlocutory direction given.
Legal Topics
Assignment of Debt, Proof of Debt, Substitution of Proof, Bankrupt Estates
Bankruptcy Assignment of Debt Proof of Debt Substitution of Proof Bankrupt Estates

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Pitman

Applicant

Warren Pantzer (Trustee of the Estate of Thomas Richard Wenkart)

First Respondent, Second Cross Respondent

Throvena Pty Limited

Second Respondent, Cross Applicant

Hapday Holdings Pty Limited

Second Respondent, Cross Applicant

Macquarie Health Corporation Limited

Second Respondent, Cross Applicant

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Proceeding With Cross Claim / Interlocutory Direction Before Final Resolution of Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a creditor may assign a debt after bankruptcy has intervened
  2. 2 Whether leave of the court is required for an assignee to substitute proof of debt in bankruptcy
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of merger eliminates the debt and prevents its assignment

Ratio Decidendi

At this interlocutory stage, the Court has not determined the substantive issue but gives direction that the assignee of a debt in bankruptcy should obtain the court's leave to substitute proof, accepting the complexity highlighted in the authorities and inviting further submissions before resolution.

Court Disposition

Matter stood over for further submissions and hearing; interlocutory direction given.

Orders

  • Any further submission by any party on the question raised in these reasons be made in writing filed and served by 5 pm on Monday, 10 December 2001.
  • Matter stood over to Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 11.30 a.m.