Carrafa and Lofthouse as Joint and Several Trustees of the Bankrupt Estate of Santucci and Santucci v Tile Mart (Vic) Pty Ltd

The applicants, Carrafa and Lofthouse as joint and several trustees of the bankrupt estate of Santucci and Santucci, sought to have certain transfers of property declared void against them pursuant to section 120 of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth). The respondent, Tile Mart (Vic) Pty Ltd, was the recipient of these alleged transfers. The dispute arose after the respondent's solicitors withdrew, and the bankrupts, Michael and Marissa Santucci, attempted to represent the respondent in the proceedings without legal representation.

The court was required to determine whether the bankrupts, acting on behalf of the respondent, could continue to participate in the proceedings without legal representation, given that the respondent was a corporation. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the transfers of property from the bankrupts' joint bank account to the respondent's bank account, made within five years prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy, were void against the trustees under section 120 of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth), considering the onus of proof rested with the applicants.

The court applied rule 9.04 of the *Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001* (Cth), which mandates that a corporation must be represented by a lawyer unless leave is granted by the court. As no application for leave was filed by the respondent, and no leave was obtained, the respondent was precluded from carrying on the proceeding. Regarding the transfers, the court noted that the applicants bore the onus of proving the elements of section 120. The transfers were made from the bankrupts' joint account to the respondent's account within the five-year period preceding the bankruptcy, satisfying the temporal requirement of section 120(1)(a).

The court found that the respondent, as a corporation, could not continue the proceeding without legal representation. Consequently, the court proceeded to consider the validity of the transfers under section 120 of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth). The transfers were found to be void against the trustees as they occurred within the relevant five-year period and no consideration was provided by the respondent.