B v U

In the case of B v U, the dispute before the court centred around the validity of a conveyance of property to the defendant, U, by the plaintiff, B. The property was conveyed following consent orders made by the Family Court of Australia, which required B to transfer the property to U as part of a settlement in family law proceedings. The key issue was whether the conveyance was valid under the Conveyancing Act 1919, particularly under section 37A, which provides that a disposition of property made to defeat or delay creditors is void. The court had to determine whether U was a creditor within the meaning of section 37A(1), which includes future creditors and impending liabilities, and whether U had acted without notice of any defect in B's title.

The court considered the definition of "creditors" under the statute and found that U, as the ex-wife of B, could be considered a creditor given the context of the family law settlement and the potential for future claims or liabilities that might arise from their relationship. It was also necessary to assess whether U was a purchaser for value without notice, which would protect the validity of the conveyance under section 37A(3). The court held that U was a purchaser for value as she received the property as part of a legal settlement, and there was no evidence that she had actual or constructive notice of any defect in B's title at the time of the transaction. Therefore, the onus of proving that U was not a purchaser for value without notice fell on B, which B failed to discharge.

Consequently, the court determined that the conveyance to U was valid, and the transfer of the property was upheld. The court found that U had not acted with notice of any defect in B's title and was protected under section 37A(3) of the Conveyancing Act 1919. The orders of the court confirmed the validity of the conveyance and dismissed B's claim to set aside the transfer of the property to U.