Trimbole, C.G. v Donnelly, M. & Anor [1986] FCA 485

Trimbole, C.G. v Donnelly, M. & Anor [1986] FCA 485

The transfer of the property was a sham transaction never intended to have legal effect and constituted a settlement of property without valuable consideration within the meaning of s 120(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966; the appellant was not a purchaser for valuable consideration and the transfer was void as against the trustee in bankruptcy.

Parties
Appellant: Craig Grainger Trimble; First Respondent: Max Christopher Donnelly - Trustee of the Estate of Robert Trimbole (The Bankrupt); Second Respondent: Water Resources Commission of N.S.W.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 1986
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Voidable Transactions, Sham Transactions, Valuable Consideration, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Interpretation of Bankruptcy Act
Bankruptcy Property Law Voidable Transactions Sham Transactions Valuable Consideration Trustee in Bankruptcy Interpretation of Bankruptcy Act

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Grainger Trimble

Appellant

Max Christopher Donnelly - Trustee of the Estate of Robert Trimbole (The Bankrupt)

First Respondent

Water Resources Commission of N.S.W.

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of property by an undischarged bankrupt to his son was a sham transaction
  2. 2 Whether the transfer was void as against the trustee in bankruptcy under s 120(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was a purchaser for valuable consideration under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The transfer of the property was a sham transaction never intended to have legal effect and constituted a settlement of property without valuable consideration within the meaning of s 120(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966; the appellant was not a purchaser for valuable consideration and the transfer was void as against the trustee in bankruptcy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.