Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Fokas v Mansfield [2017] NSWCA 231 Hearing dates: 4 September 2017 Date of orders: 04 September 2017 Decision date: 04 September 2017 Before: White JA Decision: 1. Order that the applicant’s notice of motion filed on 22 August 2017 be dismissed.
2. Order that the applicant pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the notice of motion.
3. Make no order as to costs in respect of the third respondent.Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY – administration of property – trustee in bankruptcy obtained order for possession of real estate – application for interim injunction – whether sequestration order was made – whether order for possession of property was validly made – whether trustee in bankruptcy can be restrained from exercising powers and functions – consideration of “special federal matter” – no arguable case disclosed – no reasonable prospects of success Legislation Cited: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 27, 58(1), 116(2)(b)
Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Cth) rr 6.03, 13.07
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) ss 4, 6
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 101(2)(e)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 36.16(2)(b)Cases Cited: Baykal v Van Der Velde as Trustee for Bankrupt Estate of Tandogan [2017] NSWSC 36
Macatangay v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 272
Mateljan v HTT Huntley Heritage Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 20; (2016) 111 ACSR 277
McGinn v Cranbrook School [2016] NSWCA 226
Truthful Endeavour Pty Ltd v Condon (2015) 233 FCR 174; [2015] FCAFC 70; (2015) 233 FCR 174
Turner v Gorkowski (2014) 46 VR 609; [2014] VSCA 248Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Maria Fokas (Applicant)
David Ian Mansfield (1st Respondent)
Deloitte Pty Limited (2nd Respondent)
Australian Financial Security Authority (3rd Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Applicant)
M Dawson (1st Respondent)
n/a (2nd Respondent)
J Elisher (3rd Respondent)
n/a (Applicant)
Grace Lawyers (1st Respondent)
n/a (2nd Respondent)
n/a (3rd Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/243631
Judgment
-
HIS HONOUR: By a notice of motion filed on 22 August 2017 the applicant seeks an order that:
“The Court to stop imidiately the exercising of the power of a ‘WRIT OF POSSESSION’ issued 14 December 2016 by the Supreme Court Sydney for the case number bellow 2016/00213128.
As it has NO LEGAL POWER.” [sic]
-
In oral submissions the applicant says that she seeks an order to restrain any person from taking any further action pursuant to the first respondent’s having been given possession of the subject property, that is, a property in English Street, Kogarah of which the applicant was formerly the registered proprietor. The first respondent to this application, Mr David Mansfield, is the trustee in bankruptcy of the applicant’s estate, although the applicant denies this.
-
On 1 November 2012 the Federal Magistrates Court (as it was named at that time) made an order in the following terms:
“1. A Sequestration Order be made against the estate of Maria Fokas.
2. The Applicant Creditor’s…
Continue reading Fokas v Mansfield
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Fokas v Mansfield [2017] NSWCA 231
- Case
- [2017] NSWCA 231
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the sequestration order had been validly made, whether the order for possession of the property was validly made, and whether the trustee in bankruptcy could be restrained from exercising their powers and functions. The applicant also raised the question of whether the matter constituted a "special federal matter."
White JA found that the applicant had not disclosed an arguable case and had no reasonable prospects of success. The Court determined that the sequestration order was validly made and that the trustee was entitled to exercise the powers conferred by the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). Consequently, the Court dismissed the applicant's notice of motion.
The Court ordered that the applicant's notice of motion filed on 22 August 2017 be dismissed and that the applicant pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the notice of motion. No order was made as to costs in respect of the third respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Order that the applicant’s notice of motion filed on 22 August 2017 be dismissed.
2. Order that the applicant pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the notice of motion.
3. Make no order as to costs in respect of the third respondent.
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.