FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Charan v Gleeson (No 2) [2013] FCA 1005
Citation: Charan v Gleeson (No 2) [2013] FCA 1005 Parties: USHA WATI CHARAN v BRUCE GLEESON IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF PRASHANT PRASHIKAR CHARAN File number: NSD 1761 of 2011 Judge: MCKERRACHER J Date of judgment: 3 October 2013 Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY – payment of money into Court by applicant as security for costs – appeal dismissed – respondent sought order for payment of money out of Court – where applicant subsequently became bankrupt – whether money paid into Court vested in the bankrupt’s estate Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.42(2) Cases cited: Bailey v Marinoff (1971) 125 CLR 529
Charan v Gleeson [2012] FCA 236
London County Council v Monks [1959] Ch 239
Re Lovering; Galladin Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) v Jackson (1994) 50 FCR 587Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Date of last submissions: 23 September 2013 Place: Perth Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 12 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant filed submissions in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr JD O'Connor Solicitor for the Respondent: Gillis Delaney Lawyers IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1761 of 2011
BETWEEN: USHA WATI CHARAN
ApplicantAND: BRUCE GLEESON IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF PRASHANT PRASHIKAR CHARAN
Respondent
JUDGE:
MCKERRACHER J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 OCTOBER 2013
WHERE MADE:
PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The moneys paid into Court by the applicant in the proceedings pursuant to the orders of Rares J of 14 December 2011 and any interest earned on the said moneys be paid to the respondent’s solicitors forthwith.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1761 of 2011
BETWEEN: USHA WATI CHARAN
ApplicantAND: BRUCE GLEESON IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF PRASHANT PRASHIKAR CHARAN
Respondent
JUDGE:
MCKERRACHER J
DATE:
3 OCTOBER 2013
PLACE:
PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
Mr Gleeson seeks payment out of Court to him, a sum paid into Court by Mrs Charan by way of security of costs on an appeal. His application is opposed. Further, Mrs Charan seeks to contend that the decision in the appeal should be reversed.
Background
The original proceedings giving rise to this disputation were commenced in November 2010 by Mr Gleeson (as trustee in bankruptcy) against Mrs Charan and her husband seeking various orders including orders pursuant to s 120 and s 121 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (BA). On 21 September 2011, judgment was given in favour of Mr Gleeson in the Federal Magistrates Court (now the Federal Circuit Court of Australia). Mrs Charan and her husband were ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings in that Court.
Mrs Charan appealed to this Court from the decision of…
Continue reading Charan v Gleeson (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Charan v Gleeson (No 2) [2013] FCA 1005
- Case
- [2013] FCA 1005
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to address several legal issues. Firstly, it had to determine whether Mr Gleeson was entitled to payment from the sum paid into Court by Mrs Charan to cover his costs incurred during the appeal. Secondly, it had to decide if the sum paid into Court, which was later paid to Mr Gleeson, was part of Mrs Charan's bankrupt estate. The latter point was crucial as it would affect the distribution of Mrs Charan's assets among her creditors. The court also needed to consider the effect of Mrs Charan's bankruptcy on the costs order made before her sequestration.
The court examined the legal precedents and determined that the costs order was made before Mrs Charan's bankruptcy, thus divesting any beneficial interest she might have had in the sum paid into Court. This resulted in Mr Gleeson having a beneficial interest or becoming a secured creditor in respect of the judgment in his favour. The court concluded that the sum paid into Court did not form part of Mrs Charan's estate as the costs order was made prior to her bankruptcy. Consequently, the trustees in bankruptcy were not entitled to oppose Mr Gleeson's application, and the money paid into Court did not vest in Mrs Charan's bankrupt estate.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
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.