Huynh v Helleh Holdings Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 1162

Huynh v Helleh Holdings Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 1162

The plaintiff did not establish that the second defendant was lacking in good faith or had notice of any intent to defraud creditors. The sale, despite being at an undervalue, was to a purchaser in good faith without notice. No contravention of s 37A or actionable fraud was established against the second defendant, and the claim failed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Van Tri Huynh; First Defendant: Helleh Holdings Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Hong Ve Duong; Third Defendant: Scott Darren Pascoe
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the second defendant.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Disposition of Property, Conveyancing Act 1919 S 37 a, Proof of Intent to Defraud, Good Faith Purchaser, Credibility and Weight of Evidence, Failure to Call Witnesses
Bankruptcy Equity Fraudulent Disposition of Property Conveyancing Act 1919 S 37 a Proof of Intent to Defraud Good Faith Purchaser Credibility and Weight of Evidence Failure to Call Witnesses

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Van Tri Huynh

Plaintiff

Helleh Holdings Pty Limited

First Defendant

Hong Ve Duong

Second Defendant

Scott Darren Pascoe

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale of property by the first defendant to the second defendant was entered into with the intent to defraud creditors under s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant was a bona fide purchaser not having notice of intent to defraud creditors
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff suffered disadvantage by the alienation

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not establish that the second defendant was lacking in good faith or had notice of any intent to defraud creditors. The sale, despite being at an undervalue, was to a purchaser in good faith without notice. No contravention of s 37A or actionable fraud was established against the second defendant, and the claim failed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the second defendant.

Orders

  • Judgment for the second defendant on the plaintiff's claim.
  • Plaintiff to pay the second defendant's costs of the proceedings.