FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Antares Global Pty Ltd v Mansfield (Trustee), in the matter of Yang (Bankrupt) [2018] FCA 441
File number: NSD 433 of 2018 Judge: WIGNEY J Date of judgment: 23 March 2018 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - whether leave should be granted under s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to a party to take fresh steps in Supreme Court proceedings
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – where debtor has become bankrupt – where creditor wishes to commence legal proceedings or take any fresh step in proceedings against bankrupt
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 58 Date of hearing: 23 March 2018 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 5 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr JM Ireland QC Solicitor for the Applicants: McGirr Lawyers Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr Catchpoole of Corrs Chambers Westgarth Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr BC Kasep Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Linden Legal ORDERS
NSD 433 of 2018 IN THE MATTER OF JIN HEUNG YANG (BANKRUPT)
BETWEEN: ANTARES GLOBAL PTY LTD
First Applicant
SWEALT PTY LTD
Second Applicant
AND: JIN HEUNG YANG BY HIS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, DAVID MANSFIELD
First Respondent
MARIAN YANG
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
WIGNEY J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 MARCH 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.An order pursuant to s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), that the applicants have leave to take the following fresh steps in proceedings 2017/16773 in the Supreme Court, New South Wales, between the applicants as plaintiffs and the bankrupt, Jin Heung Yang, as defendant:
(a)To make application to that Court for a continuation of the freezing order made by that Court on 9 March 2018;
(b)To make such application in the Supreme Court proceedings as the applicants may be advised with respect to the second respondent, Marian Yang, dealing with any proceeds of sale of the property known as 6 Gilmour Close, Glenhaven, in the state of New South Wales which may be in her power, possession or control,
2.The matter be listed for a case management hearing on 16 April 2018 at 9:30am.
3.The parties have liberty to re-list the matter at short notice.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript)WIGNEY J:
This is an urgent application for an order giving the applicants leave pursuant to s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to take further action in proceedings that they have commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the respondent, Mr Jin Heung Yang. The further action that is contemplated is the continuation of freezing orders that have been made against Mr Yang. Leave to take that step is necessary because Mr Yang was declared bankrupt yesterday. The urgency arises because the freezing orders expire at 2.30 pm today, if not extended. The terms of the order sought will also give the applicants leave, to extent that leave is necessary, to apply for relief in the Supreme Court proceedings against Mr Yang’s estranged wife, Mrs Marian Yang, who is the second respondent in these proceedings.
I have read the affidavit in support of the application sworn by the applicant’s solicitor, Mr McGirr. In his affidavit, Mr McGirr explains the nature of the Supreme Court proceedings and the circumstances in which the freezing orders were made. The affidavit annexes, or exhibits, documents relating to the Supreme Court proceedings. The obvious purpose of the freezing orders is to prevent the further dissipation of the proceeds of sale of a property formerly owned by Mr and Mrs Yang. The property of Mr Yang now vests in his trustee in bankruptcy, the first respondent to this proceeding. The continuation of the freezing order is plainly in the best interests of Mr Yang’s creditors, who will now be required to prove in his bankruptcy.
I note that Mr Yang’s trustee in bankruptcy did not oppose the order granting leave, so long as it was limited to permitting the continuation of the freezing orders, as they are, and that there was some temporal limit. I propose, in that regard, to list the matter for a further case management hearing in mid-April 2018. Mrs Yang also did not directly oppose the order insofar as it affected her, though her counsel did make submissions on her behalf. Those submissions, however, were directed more to what can and should occur in the Supreme Court proceedings. I note also that I have some doubts that leave is necessary in the case of any step that may be taken against Mrs Yang in the Supreme Court proceedings. Mrs Yang is not a bankrupt. That said, because the proceedings involve a bankrupt, there may be some argument that leave is required to take any further step in the proceedings, even though that step does not directly affect the bankrupt. I am, therefore, prepared to grant leave in those circumstances, to the extent it is necessary, and for more abundant caution.
I am satisfied, in all the circumstances, that leave under s 58(3)(b) of the Act is appropriate to permit the applicants to apply for a continuation of the freezing orders against Mr Yang in the Supreme Court proceedings, and to take such steps as may be considered necessary against Mrs Yang in those proceedings to prevent the further dissipation of money that might properly form part of the bankrupt estate of Mr Yang.
Orders will be made accordingly.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wigney. Associate:
Dated: 29 March 2018
- AGLC
- Antares Global Pty Ltd v Mansfield (Trustee), in the matter of Yang (Bankrupt) [2018] FCA 441
- Case
- [2018] FCA 441
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants' actions were appropriate and whether granting leave would facilitate the proper administration of the bankrupt's estate. The court had to consider the potential impact on the estate and the rights of other creditors. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the applicants had acted diligently and whether the proposed steps were necessary to protect the estate.
The court found that the applicants had demonstrated a need for the proposed steps to protect their interests and the estate. The freezing order was essential to prevent the dissipation of assets, and addressing the proceeds from the sale of the Glenhaven property was necessary to ensure the estate's integrity. The court concluded that the applicants had acted reasonably and that granting leave would not prejudice other creditors or the administration of the estate. Consequently, the court granted the applicants leave to take the specified fresh steps in the Supreme Court proceedings.
The final orders of the court included granting the applicants leave to continue the freezing order and to apply for any necessary steps regarding the proceeds from the Glenhaven property sale. The matter was listed for a case management hearing to ensure that the proceedings were managed efficiently. The parties were also granted liberty to re-list the matter at short notice, allowing for flexibility in scheduling future hearings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. An order pursuant to s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), that the applicants have leave to take the following fresh steps in proceedings 2017/16773 in the Supreme Court, New South Wales, between the applicants as plaintiffs and the bankrupt, Jin Heung Yang, as defendant:
(a) To make application to that Court for a continuation of the freezing order made by that Court on 9 March 2018;
(b) To make such application in the Supreme Court proceedings as the applicants may be advised with respect to the second respondent, Marian Yang, dealing with any proceeds of sale of the property known as 6 Gilmour Close, Glenhaven, in the state of New South Wales which may be in her power, possession or control,
2. The matter be listed for a case management hearing on 16 April 2018 at 9:30am.
3. The parties have liberty to re-list the matter at short notice.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.