Fokas v Mansfield

Case [2017] NSWCA 231


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 248
Category: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:
Self-represented (Applicant)
M Dawson (1st Respondent)
n/a (2nd Respondent)
J Elisher (3rd Respondent)

  Solicitors:
n/a (Applicant)
Grace Lawyers (1st Respondent)
n/a (2nd Respondent)
n/a (3rd Respondent)
File Number(s):2017/243631

Judgment

  1. 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]

  1. 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.

  2. 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

Details
AGLC
Fokas v Mansfield [2017] NSWCA 231
Case
[2017] NSWCA 231
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Fokas v Mansfield*, the applicant sought an interim injunction to restrain the trustee in bankruptcy from exercising powers and functions concerning real estate, following an order for possession of that property. The dispute concerned the validity of the sequestration order and the subsequent possession order. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

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.