Central Coast Council v Armstrong [2019] FCA 1613

Central Coast Council v Armstrong [2019] FCA 1613

Because the Armstrongs' interests in the property vested in their trustees on bankruptcy, were later disclaimed, and then escheated to the Crown subject to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), and because unpaid rates remained a statutory burden on the property, it was just and equitable under s 133(9) to vest the property in the Central Coast Council as sole proprietor for sale under s 137 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas), with orders preserving the priority of sale proceeds for costs, Council and Crown liabilities, secured interests, other notified encumbrances and the previous owners.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Originating Application for a Vesting Order Under S 133(9) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth) Concerning Land to Be Sold for Unpaid Rates / Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application granted; property vested in the Central Coast Council for sale, consequential priority orders made, and declaration as to costs made.
Legal Topics
['vesting of Disclaimed Property' 'escheat to the Crown' 'sale of Land for Unpaid Rates' 'priorities on Sale Proceeds' 'trustees in Bankruptcy']
['bankruptcy' 'local Government' 'property Law' 'insolvency'] ['vesting of Disclaimed Property' 'escheat to the Crown' 'sale of Land for Unpaid Rates' 'priorities on Sale Proceeds' 'trustees in Bankruptcy']

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

Originating Application for a Vesting Order Under S 133(9) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth) Concerning Land to Be Sold for Unpaid Rates / Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether property formerly owned by bankrupt registered proprietors and disclaimed by their trustees in bankruptcy should vest in the Central Coast Council under s 133(9) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).' 'Whether it was just and equitable to vest the property in the Council for sale to recover unpaid rates under the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas).' 'How the interests of the State of Tasmania, mortgagee ANZ and caveators should be protected in any vesting and sale orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Armstrongs' interests in the property vested in their trustees on bankruptcy, were later disclaimed, and then escheated to the Crown subject to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), and because unpaid rates remained a statutory burden on the property, it was just and equitable under s 133(9) to vest the property in the Central Coast Council as sole proprietor for sale under s 137 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas), with orders preserving the priority of sale proceeds for costs, Council and Crown liabilities, secured interests, other notified encumbrances and the previous owners.

Court Disposition

Application granted; property vested in the Central Coast Council for sale, consequential priority orders made, and declaration as to costs made.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 133(9) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), the property at 4 Turners Beach Road, Turners Beach in Tasmania as is more particularly described in Certificate of Title Volume 8179 Folio 1 vest in the Central Coast Council for the purposes of sale by the Central Coast Council of the property for unpaid...