Donnelly v Porteous

[2001] FCA 345

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Donnelly (Trustee), in the matter of the bankrupt estate of Hancock v Porteous
[2001] FCA 345

INJUNCTIONS – interlocutory injunctions – injunctions to preserve status quo and property pending determination of rights – Mareva orders – factors to be considered by the Court in determining whether orders should be made

BANKRUPTCY – administration of bankrupt estate under Part XI of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act) – transfer affected by s 120 of the Act – date on which the trustee’s claim arises – date from which interest payable by the transferee

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 40(1)(b), s120, s 247A(1)

Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis [1975] 1 WLR 1093 referred to
Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509; [1980] 1 All ER 213 followed
Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380 followed
Glenwood Management Group Pty Ltd v Mayo [1991] 2 VR 49 followed
Pearce v Waterhouse [1986] VR 603 followed
Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 612 followed
Williams v Lloyd (1934) 50 CLR 341 followed

MAX CHRISTOPHER DONNELLY (AS TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE LANGLEY GEORGE HANCOCK) v ROSEMARIE PORTEOUS & ORS
N 8132 of 1999

STONE J
SYDNEY
2 APRIL 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 8132 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

MAX CHRISTOPHER DONNELLY (AS TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE LANGLEY GEORGE HANCOCK)
APPLICANT

AND:

ROSEMARIE PORTEOUS
FIRST RESPONDENT

JOHANNA LACSON NOMINEES PTY LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

BELLE ROSA HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

STONE J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 APRIL 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

ON THE APPLICANT GIVING THE USUAL UNDERTAKING AS TO DAMAGES THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        Pending the determination of these proceedings, the First Respondent be restrained by herself, her servants or agents from selling, charging, mortgaging, encumbering or otherwise disposing of or dealing with the property known as “Prix d’Amour” (being Lots 100 and 104, Wellington Street, Mosman Park in the State of Western Australia) without first giving twenty-one (21) days’ written notice to the Applicant.

2.        Pending the determination of these proceedings, the First and Second Respondents be restrained by themselves, their servants or agents from selling, charging, mortgaging, encumbering or otherwise disposing of or dealing with the property known as Lot 26, Alaqua, Phase 3 in the Country of Seminole, Florida in the United States of America (“the Orlando Property”) without first giving twenty-one (21) days’ written notice to the Applicant.

3.        Pending the determination of these proceedings that, in the event of sale of Prix d’Amour, the First Respondent give not less than twenty-one (21) days’ written notice to the Applicant prior to settlement of such sale.

4.        Pending the determination of these proceedings that, in the event of sale of the Orlando Property, the First and Second Respondents give not less than twenty-one (21) days’ written notice to the Applicant prior to settlement of such sale.

5. In the event of sale…