Penson v Palmer [2018] FCA 1202

Penson v Palmer [2018] FCA 1202

The application was dismissed because Ms Penson, being bankrupt, had no standing to bring it. She did not hold legal title to the Property, Mr Palmer had become registered proprietor, and any equitable title vested in Mr Leroy upon his appointment as trustee in bankruptcy on 4 May 2016. Ms Penson also could not advance Mr Penson's claim concerning the caveat or equitable mortgage. That lack of standing was sufficient to dispose of the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Application for Declarations Concerning Supreme Court of New South Wales Orders Vesting Property in a Receiver and Manager / Application Dismissed With Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['vesting of Property Upon Bankruptcy' 'standing of Bankrupt to Bring Proceedings' 'leave Under S 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth)' 'court Appointed Receiver and Manager' 'cross Vesting Jurisdiction' 'priority of Creditors']
['bankruptcy' 'insolvency' 'civil Procedure'] ['vesting of Property Upon Bankruptcy' 'standing of Bankrupt to Bring Proceedings' 'leave Under S 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth)' 'court Appointed Receiver and Manager' 'cross Vesting Jurisdiction' 'priority of Creditors']

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

Bankruptcy Application for Declarations Concerning Supreme Court of New South Wales Orders Vesting Property in a Receiver and Manager / Application Dismissed With Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales required leave of a federal court vested with bankruptcy jurisdiction under s 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) before making or enforcing orders concerning the Property.' 'Whether the orders made by Kunc J and Fullerton J disturbed the order of priority prescribed by the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).' 'Whether Ms Penson, as a bankrupt, had standing to bring the application.' "Whether claims concerning Mr Penson's caveat or asserted equitable mortgage could be advanced by Ms Penson."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because Ms Penson, being bankrupt, had no standing to bring it. She did not hold legal title to the Property, Mr Palmer had become registered proprietor, and any equitable title vested in Mr Leroy upon his appointment as trustee in bankruptcy on 4 May 2016. Ms Penson also could not advance Mr Penson's claim concerning the caveat or equitable mortgage. That lack of standing was sufficient to dispose of the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "Ms Penson must pay Mr Palmer's and Mr Leroy's costs as agreed or taxed."]