Williamson v Debney [2023] NSWSC 783

Williamson v Debney [2023] NSWSC 783

The plaintiff's claim was not a personal injury claim but fell within the definition of property in s 5 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). Because the plaintiff had been declared bankrupt, remained an undischarged bankrupt, and the trustee did not elect to continue the proceedings, the plaintiff had no standing to bring them. Leave to replead would be futile, and the pleading had no reasonable chance of success. The proceedings were therefore summarily dismissed pursuant to UCPR r 13.4 against all defendants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure; Bankruptcy; Alleged Fraud; Insolvent Companies; Lack of Standing / Hearing of the First, Third and Fourth Defendants' Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal or Strike Out of the Statement of Claim, and the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Judgment for Damages to Be Assessed
Outcome
The plaintiff's proceedings were dismissed pursuant to UCPR r 13.4, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the first, third and fourth defendants' costs of the proceedings including both notices of motion.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'standing of Bankrupt Plaintiff' 'vesting of Property in Trustee in Bankruptcy' 'frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action']
['civil Procedure' 'bankruptcy'] ['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'standing of Bankrupt Plaintiff' 'vesting of Property in Trustee in Bankruptcy' 'frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action']

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 Procedure; Bankruptcy; Alleged Fraud; Insolvent Companies; Lack of Standing / Hearing of the First, Third and Fourth Defendants' Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal or Strike Out of the Statement of Claim, and the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Judgment for Damages to Be Assessed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff, as an undischarged bankrupt, had standing to bring the proceedings' "Whether the plaintiff's claim was a personal injury claim or property vesting in the trustee in bankruptcy" 'Whether the proceedings should be dismissed under UCPR r 13.4 or the statement of claim struck out under UCPR r 14.28' 'Whether there was any utility in granting leave to replead']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim was not a personal injury claim but fell within the definition of property in s 5 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). Because the plaintiff had been declared bankrupt, remained an undischarged bankrupt, and the trustee did not elect to continue the proceedings, the plaintiff had no standing to bring them. Leave to replead would be futile, and the pleading had no reasonable chance of success. The proceedings were therefore summarily dismissed pursuant to UCPR r 13.4 against all defendants.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's proceedings were dismissed pursuant to UCPR r 13.4, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the first, third and fourth defendants' costs of the proceedings including both notices of motion.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's proceedings are dismissed pursuant to UCPR r 13.4." "The plaintiff is to pay the first, third and fourth defendants' costs of the proceedings, including both notices of motion."]