Gore v Prentice (Trustee), in the matter of the Personal Insolvency Agreement of Gore [2012] FCA 104

Gore v Prentice (Trustee), in the matter of the Personal Insolvency Agreement of Gore [2012] FCA 104

There was not a prima facie case shown to justify interlocutory injunctive relief to restrain Mr Warner from acting as trustee, as the evidence did not support a reasonable apprehension of lack of impartiality and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

Parties
Applicant: Craig Kirrin Gore; First Respondent: Maxwell William Prentice as Trustee of the Personal Insolvency Agreement of Craig Kirrin Gore; Second Respondent: Anthony John Warner
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Personal Insolvency Agreements, Removal of Trustee, Impartiality of Trustee
Practice and Procedure Insolvency Law Interlocutory Injunctions Personal Insolvency Agreements Removal of Trustee Impartiality of Trustee

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Kirrin Gore

Applicant

Maxwell William Prentice as Trustee of the Personal Insolvency Agreement of Craig Kirrin Gore

First Respondent

Anthony John Warner

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunction should issue to restrain Mr Warner from acting as trustee of Gore's personal insolvency agreement
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious question to be tried as to the impartiality of the trustee

Ratio Decidendi

There was not a prima facie case shown to justify interlocutory injunctive relief to restrain Mr Warner from acting as trustee, as the evidence did not support a reasonable apprehension of lack of impartiality and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed

Orders

  • The interlocutory application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the second respondent's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application, to be taxed if not agreed.