CHOI & DANG & ORS (No.2)

This matter concerned the distribution of interests in two properties, the Street R, Suburb S Property and the D Street, Suburb E Property, and a motor vehicle. The parties involved were the Applicant, the First Respondent, the Second Respondent, the Third Respondent, and the Fourth Respondent, who was the appointed Bankruptcy Trustee of the First Respondent. The dispute centred on the beneficial ownership of these assets and the manner in which they should be dealt with, particularly in light of the First Respondent's bankruptcy.

The court was required to determine the respective legal and equitable interests of the parties in the Street R, Suburb S Property and the D Street, Suburb E Property. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain the proportions in which these properties were held on trust for the parties, taking into account the bankruptcy of the First Respondent and the provisions of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth) and the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also had to determine the priority of claims against the proceeds of sale of these properties and the appropriate distribution of those proceeds.

Judge Burchardt declared that the Street R, Suburb S Property was held by the Second Respondent on trust for the Second Respondent (50%) and the First Respondent (50%). The D Street, Suburb E Property was declared to be held by the First Respondent on trust for the First Respondent (50% of the increase in value) and the Third Respondent (the remainder). The court further declared that the legal and equitable interests of the First Respondent in both properties vested in the Fourth Respondent upon his appointment as Bankruptcy Trustee. Crucially, pursuant to sections 90AE and/or 78 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the legal interests held by the First Respondent in both properties were declared to be held on trust for the Applicant and the First Respondent in the proportions of 80% to the Fourth Respondent and 20% to the Applicant. The court then made extensive orders for the sale of both properties, specifying the process for marketing, sale, and the distribution of proceeds, with particular attention to the claims of the Fourth Respondent as Trustee and the Applicant's beneficial interest. Alternative provisions were made for the Second Respondent to payout the Applicant's and Fourth Respondent's interests in the Street R, Suburb S Property. Orders were also made for the transfer of a motor vehicle to the Applicant and for the Registrar to execute documents if parties failed to comply with the court's orders.