SCHNEIDER V. WITCOMBE

SCHNEIDER V. WITCOMBE

Schneider was not protected under section 96 or section 96A of the Bankruptcy Act as he had notice of an act of bankruptcy at the time of payments, and the transactions were not in the ordinary course of business or bona fide. Thus, the repayments ordered were valid.

Parties
Appellant: Schneider; Respondent: Witcombe; Bankrupt: Simpson; Creditor: Robinson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 1944
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Preferential Payment, Relation Back Doctrine, Protection Under Bankruptcy Act
Bankruptcy Preferential Payment Relation Back Doctrine Protection Under 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Schneider

Appellant

Witcombe

Respondent

Simpson

Bankrupt

Robinson

Creditor

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Schneider is protected under section 96 or section 96A of the Bankruptcy Act regarding payments received prior to sequestration order
  2. 2 Whether payments constituted preferential payments to Schneider and should be repaid

Ratio Decidendi

Schneider was not protected under section 96 or section 96A of the Bankruptcy Act as he had notice of an act of bankruptcy at the time of payments, and the transactions were not in the ordinary course of business or bona fide. Thus, the repayments ordered were valid.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.