Glover & Webster

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction considered an appeal from a declaration that a Binding Financial Agreement (BFA) between Ms Glover and Mr Webster covered all the assets, liabilities, superannuation, financial interests, and financial resources of the parties, leaving no available property for a property settlement order. Ms Glover, the first appellant, argued the BFA did not cover certain assets, while Mr Webster, the first respondent, maintained the agreement was binding. The appeal was dismissed, focusing on the issue of whether Ms Glover, having become bankrupt, had standing to prosecute the appeal.

The court had to decide if Ms Glover, now a bankrupt, could appeal the declaration regarding the BFA. The appeal's legal foundation hinged on whether Ms Glover had the requisite interest in the order to proceed with the appeal, considering her bankruptcy and the subsequent vesting of her property in her trustee. The court examined precedents, notably Cummings v Claremont Petroleum Pty Ltd, Guirguis v Guirguis, and O'Neill v O'Neill and Ors, which established that a bankrupt lacks the necessary interest to appeal orders concerning property that vests in the trustee.

The court held that Ms Glover, as an undischarged bankrupt, lacked the standing to prosecute the appeal. The decision in Cummings clarified that a bankrupt's contingent interest in a surplus post-bankruptcy does not confer the right to appeal. The court further noted that while Ms Glover could potentially seek a property settlement if the appeal were successful, any property received would vest in her trustee, depriving her of the interest necessary to appeal. The trustee had also elected not to prosecute the appeal, reinforcing the conclusion that Ms Glover had no standing to continue the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.