Hung (Trustee), in the matter of Farouk v Farouk (No 2)

The case of Hung (Trustee), in the matter of Farouk v Farouk (No 2) involved the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings and the administration of assets in Australia. The applicant, Hung (Trustee), sought recognition of a foreign main proceeding in Singapore and the administration of the respondent's assets in Australia. The respondent, Mohammed Farouk, did not appear in court, and there was no evidence of his habitual residence in Australia. The primary legal issues concerned whether the Singapore bankruptcy proceedings should be recognised as a foreign main proceeding under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 and the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, and whether ancillary relief should be granted to entrust the administration of the respondent's Australian assets to Mr Frank Lo Pilato.

The court recognised that the recognition of the Singapore bankruptcy proceedings as a foreign main proceeding was appropriate given the respondent's centre of main interest was in Singapore, even though he had departed the country. The court found that Mr Lo Pilato was well-suited to administer the respondent's Australian assets due to his extensive experience, local presence, and understanding of Australian bankruptcy laws. The court concluded that granting Mr Lo Pilato the additional powers available to a trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 was appropriate to facilitate the efficient administration of the respondent's assets in Australia.

The court granted the application, recognising the Singapore bankruptcy proceedings as a foreign main proceeding and entrusting the administration, realisation, and distribution of the respondent's Australian assets to Mr Lo Pilato. The court also made available to Mr Lo Pilato all the powers normally available to a trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act. Additionally, the court ordered that the applicants must serve and publish notices of the orders in accordance with the Federal Court (Bankrupcy) Rules 2016, and that the respondent pay the applicants' costs of the proceeding.