Fodare Pty Ltd v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy

Fodare Pty Ltd, represented by the appellants, appealed against the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, represented by the respondent, in a case concerning the voiding of a property purchase and a bank account transaction. The primary judge had declared the purchase of a property at 92 Racecourse Avenue, Menangle Park, by or for Fodare Pty Ltd, to be a settlement void against the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. Additionally, the primary judge had declared the disposition of $87,500 from a joint bank account held by two of the appellants with the State Bank of New South Wales to be void against the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge's declarations were justified and whether the disposition of funds from the joint bank account constituted a preference under the Bankruptcy Act 1966. The appellants argued that the primary judge had erred in law by declaring the property purchase void and by declaring the bank account transaction void. They further argued that the transaction did not constitute a preference as it occurred within the relevant preference period.

The court found that the primary judge had erred in declaring the property purchase void. The court held that there was no evidence to support a finding that the purchase represented a settlement void against the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. The court also found that the primary judge had erred in declaring the bank account transaction void. The court held that there was no evidence to support a finding that the transaction constituted a preference under the Bankruptcy Act 1966. The court noted that the transaction occurred within the relevant preference period, but that this did not necessarily mean that it was a preference.

The appeal was upheld, and the declarations made by the primary judge were set aside. The court reserved the question of whether any further relief should be granted consequential upon the setting aside of the declarations and the question of costs for further consideration. The appeal was relisted for further argument on the reserved matters.