Puglia v Basol & Ors [2005] NSWSC 1271

Puglia v Basol & Ors [2005] NSWSC 1271

The first defendant's three alienations of property (sale proceeds, share transfer, business transfer) were made voluntarily and without consideration to his wife (second defendant) while the plaintiff was creditor and enforcement proceedings were pending; inferences drawn from this context and absence of evidence from the defendants establish intent to defraud creditors within s.37A(1). Section 37A(3) does not protect the transactions, as the transferee was not a purchaser for valuable consideration. Relief is justified and orders granted to restore property and protect against dissipation with Mareva orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding / Judgment
Outcome
Declaratory and other relief granted
Legal Topics
['alienation of Property With Intent to Defraud Creditors' 'voidable Transactions' 'mareva Relief']
['conveyancing' 'equity'] ['alienation of Property With Intent to Defraud Creditors' 'voidable Transactions' 'mareva Relief']

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

Equity Proceeding / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the alienation of property by the first defendant was made with intent to defraud creditors within s.37A of Conveyancing Act 1919' 'Whether the transactions should be voided and property restored' 'Appropriate form of relief, including Mareva orders']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant's three alienations of property (sale proceeds, share transfer, business transfer) were made voluntarily and without consideration to his wife (second defendant) while the plaintiff was creditor and enforcement proceedings were pending; inferences drawn from this context and absence of evidence from the defendants establish intent to defraud creditors within s.37A(1). Section 37A(3) does not protect the transactions, as the transferee was not a purchaser for valuable consideration. Relief is justified and orders granted to restore property and protect against dissipation with Mareva orders.

Court Disposition

Declaratory and other relief granted

Orders

  • ['Orders 1 to 6 in the amended summons granted' 'Orders 7 to 12 (unspecified in excerpt) granted' 'Restoration of property to first defendant (sale proceeds, share, and business)' 'Mareva orders made in respect of restored property to first defendant, operative for a limited time' "Plaintiff's costs of proceedings...