Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCA 531

Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCA 531

The appellant failed to establish any error by the primary judge: there was no evidence of improper purpose by the respondent creditors in filing the petition; procedural fairness was not denied; offers of security or tenders from the appellant or her associates were not acceptable substitutes for payment; the proposed special leave applications to the High Court had no reasonable prospects of success; the appellant did not discharge the onus of proving solvency given the existence of significant legally due debts notwithstanding the attitude of creditors; and the orders made by the primary judge were correct in law and consistent with the evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Margo Young; First Respondent: Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Stephen John Perrens
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sequestration Order, Creditor's Petition, Improper Purpose, Procedural Fairness, Solvency, Adjournment, Special Leave Applications, Costs
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Sequestration Order Creditor's Petition Improper Purpose Procedural Fairness Solvency Adjournment Special Leave Applications +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margo Young

Appellant

Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Stephen John Perrens

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the creditor's petition was maintained for an improper purpose
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness in the conduct of the hearing
  3. 3 Whether the primary judge erred in his consideration and treatment of submissions about the appellant's applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to establish any error by the primary judge: there was no evidence of improper purpose by the respondent creditors in filing the petition; procedural fairness was not denied; offers of security or tenders from the appellant or her associates were not acceptable substitutes for payment; the proposed special leave applications to the High Court had no reasonable prospects of success; the appellant did not discharge the onus of proving solvency given the existence of significant legally due debts notwithstanding the attitude of creditors; and the orders made by the primary judge were correct in law and consistent with the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the first respondent's and second respondent's costs.