Hicks & Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Hicks

In the case of Hicks & Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Hicks, the court examined the division of assets between a bankrupt husband and his wife. The dispute arose from the 2011 consent orders which had allocated certain assets and liabilities between the parties. The wife challenged these orders on the basis that they were unjust, given the husband’s lack of participation in the proceedings and his undisclosed assets. The primary judge was tasked with determining whether the 2011 orders were unjust and, if so, what new orders should be made.

The court had to decide whether there had been a miscarriage of justice in the original orders, considering the husband's non-disclosure and non-participation. Additionally, the court needed to assess the totality of the property of the parties as revealed by the evidence, including the value of assets and the husband's debts. The court also had to consider the evidence of the trustee's enquiries, which included examinations of the husband and various banks, as well as the husband's significant borrowings against properties in Country Q.

The court found that there had indeed been a miscarriage of justice in the original orders due to the husband’s non-disclosure and non-participation. The primary judge concluded that the wife should not be liable for the husband's debts, as no link had been established between the marriage and those debts. However, the debts should be paid. The court ordered that the husband's debts be paid by the wife, allowing her to retain other assets and liabilities. The court also allowed the wife three months to make the payment and ordered that the Suburb F property be sold if payment was not made. The court left the issue of costs to be considered later.

In conclusion, the court set aside the 2011 orders and made new orders that provided for the husband’s proven debts in bankruptcy to be paid out to his trustee. The wife was to retain the parties' property interests, subject to other existing liabilities. The outcome resulted in the husband's estate in bankruptcy receiving $651,747.03, while the wife retained the Suburb F property worth $2.5 million, other assets worth $91,127, and liabilities of $381,263, equating to a total retention of about $1.5 million.