Palmer v Penson (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 987

Palmer v Penson (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 987

The plaintiff, having been appointed and vested as receiver and manager by court order effective and entered prior to the defendant’s bankruptcy, is entitled to possession and to seek a writ of possession; neither the defendant nor her Trustee opposed the substantive relief, and the legal arguments raised as to vesting and procedural bars failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff for possession of the property; leave to issue writ of possession (not before 25 July 2018); costs to the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['possession of Land' 'receivership' 'bankruptcy' 'writ of Possession' 'standing in Civil Proceedings' 'stay of Execution' 'reckoning of Time in Procedural Law']
['real Property' 'bankruptcy Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['possession of Land' 'receivership' 'bankruptcy' 'writ of Possession' 'standing in Civil Proceedings' 'stay of Execution' 'reckoning of Time in Procedural Law']

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

Civil / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff, as receiver and manager, is entitled to possession and leave to issue a writ of possession of the property after the defendant's bankruptcy" 'Whether the defendant has standing to oppose the orders' 'Whether vesting of property in the receiver occurred prior to bankruptcy vesting in the Trustee' 'Whether the stay of execution affected the operative date of the order']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff, having been appointed and vested as receiver and manager by court order effective and entered prior to the defendant’s bankruptcy, is entitled to possession and to seek a writ of possession; neither the defendant nor her Trustee opposed the substantive relief, and the legal arguments raised as to vesting and procedural bars failed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff for possession of the property; leave to issue writ of possession (not before 25 July 2018); costs to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff for possession of the land comprised in folio XXX being the land situated at and known as XXX Gillespie Avenue, Alexandria in the state of New South Wales.' 'Leave to the plaintiff to issue a writ of possession; such writ not to be executed before 25 July 2018.' "The defendant is to pay...