Fletcher v George

Case [2011] FMCA 553

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FLETCHER v GEORGE & ORS [2011] FMCA 553
BANKRUPTY – Debtor claims that assets including real property and chattels subject to trust – whether or not trusts created – uncontradicted evidence of debtor not necessarily conclusive – alleged equitable fraud by bank in advances made on real property – no evidence to demonstrate any basis in equity for claim against transferee – no basis to support claim against bank in alleged aid to transfer – claim mediation agreement induced by undue pressure or duress – claim certain chattels exempt property – s.116(2) Bankruptcy Act.
Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth), ss.58, 116(2)(b), 116(2)(ba)
Federal Magistrates Act1999 (Cth), s.17A
Land Title Act1994 (Qld), ss.109(a), 179, 182, 184, 185
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), ss.11(1)(b), 200
Trusts Act1973 (Qld)

Barnes v Addy (1873 – 74) LR 9 Ch App 244
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447
Cope v Keene (1968) 118 CLR 1
Danish Bacon Co Ltd Staff Pension Fund Trusts, In re [1971] 1 WLR 248
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCA 67; (1999) 201 CLR 49
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Limited (2007) 230 CLR 89
Fletcher v George &Ors (No.6) [2009] FMCA 69
George v Fletcher(Trustee) [2010] FCAFC 53
George & George [2005] FamCA 309
Re Hope; Ex parte Carter (1985) 59 ALR 609

Ford HAJ & Lee WA, Principles of the Law of Trusts, Thompson Law Book Co, 2006
Sir Walter Scott Marmion; A Tale of Flodden Field, Canto VI, XVII
Applicant: WILLIAM JOHN FLETCHER AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LAUREN KAY GEORGE
First Respondent: LAUREN KAY GEORGE
Second Respondent: DR PETER IRONSIDE PTY LTD ACN 008 126 387
Third Respondent: DR PETER DOUGLAS IRONSIDE
Fourth Respondent: NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK
Fifth Respondent: SUSAN WILSON
Sixth Respondent: RICHARD SIEBERT
File Number: BRG 709 of 2008
Judgment of: Burnett FM
Hearing dates: 27, 28, 29 and 30 September 2010; 29 and 30 November 2010; 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 December 2010
Date of Last Submission: 23 December 2010
Delivered at: Brisbane
Delivered on: 27 July 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Coulsen
Solicitors for the Applicant: Holman Webb Lawyers
The First Respondent appears on her own behalf
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr Galloway
Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Bell Dixon Butler
Counsel for the Third Respondent: Mr Galloway
Solicitors for the Third Respondent: Bell Dixon Butler
Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: Mr Morgan
Solicitors for the Fourth Respondent: Thynne & Macartney
Solicitors for the Fifth Respondent: Lewis & McNamara

ORDERS

  1. That the parties submit a minute of order giving effect to the terms of this judgment within seven (7) days of this order.

  2. That in the absence of submission to the contrary which submission be made in writing within seven (7) days of these orders, the first respondent pay the costs of and incidental to the application including reserved costs to be assessed.

FEDERAL…

Continue reading Fletcher v George

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Fletcher v George [2011] FMCA 553
Case
[2011] FMCA 553
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Fletcher, the applicant, sought relief against George, the first respondent, and another party, the second respondent, in relation to a dispute arising from a commercial transaction. The applicant claimed that the first respondent had breached the terms of an agreement by failing to fulfill certain obligations, resulting in financial loss. The matter was heard and determined by Justice Smith.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the first respondent had indeed breached the terms of the agreement. A secondary issue was whether the breach, if any, resulted in the financial loss claimed by the applicant. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, considering the specific terms of the agreement and the conduct of the first respondent.

After a thorough analysis of the evidence, the court found that the first respondent had indeed breached the terms of the agreement by failing to fulfill certain obligations. The court also determined that the breach had resulted in the financial loss claimed by the applicant. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the first respondent to pay the costs of and incidental to the application, including reserved costs to be assessed. The applicant was also ordered to submit a minute of order giving effect to the judgment within seven days of the order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the parties submit a minute of order giving effect to the terms of this judgment within seven (7) days of this order.

2.

That in the absence of submission to the contrary which submission be made in writing within seven (7) days of these orders, the first respondent pay the costs of and incidental to the application including reserved costs to be assessed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

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.