Kitay (Liquidator) v Trenfield (Trustee)

Case [2021] FCA 508


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kitay (Liquidator) v Trenfield (Trustee) [2021] FCA 508

File number: WAD 40 of 2021
Judgment of: JACKSON J
Date of judgment: 6 May 2021
Date of publication of reasons: 13 May 2021
Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY - application for leave under s 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to continue Supreme Court proceedings - provable claims linked with other claims - complex facts and law - leave granted
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 58, 60, 82, 104
Cases cited:

7Steel Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Wright [2011] FCA 328

Ashala v Featherstone [2016] QSC 121; [2017] 2 Qd R 1

Auto Group Ltd v England [2008] NSWSC 402

Commissioner of Taxation v Yeo (Trustee) [2018] FCA 635

Commissioner of Taxation v Yeo (Trustee) (No 2) [2019] FCA 1188

Cummings v Claremont Petroleum NL (1996) 185 CLR 124

Fraser v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 69 FCR 99

Free v Ma [2020] FCA 226

Frigger v Kitay (Liquidator) [2020] FCA 482

Health Services Union v Jackson (No 3) [2015] FCA 694

Hudson v Sigalla [2015] FCAFC 140; (2015) 235 FCR 122

Kattirtzis v Zaravinos [2001] FCA 1158

Mango Media Pty Ltd v Velingos [2008] NSWSC 202; (2008) 216 FLR 176

Melnik v Melnik [2005] FCAFC 160; (2005) 144 FCR 141

Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd v Waters (No 5) [2011] FCA 1428

Otvosi v Ferella [2008] FMCA 1250; (2008) 219 FLR 472

Pedersen v Delaveris [2010] FCA 536

Re McMaster; Ex parte McMaster (1991) 33 FCR 70

Re Rose; Ex parte Devaban Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1082

Re Sharp; Ex parte Tietyens Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) [1998] FCA 1367

SBA Music Pty Ltd v Hall (No 2) [2014] FCA 1116

Taylor (liquidator) v Trustee, bankrupt estate of Heading, in the matter of Heading [2020] FCA 1450

Van Dyke v Lo Pilato, in the matter of Sidhu [2016] FCA 1347

Westpac Banking Corporation v Victor Warren Ollis [2007] FCA 1194

Wilson v Sellers [2016] FCCA 1425

Zervas v Burkitt [2019] NSWCA 112

Division: General Division
Registry: Western Australia
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 29
Date of hearing: 6 May 2021
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr BW Ashdown
Solicitor for the Applicants: Lenhoff & Hotz
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: The first and second respondents filed submitting notices
Counsel for the Third Respondent: The third respondent appeared in person
Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: The fourth respondent did not appear

ORDERS

WAD 40 of 2021
BETWEEN:

MERVYN JONATHAN KITAY IN HIS CAPACITY AS LIQUIDATOR OF COMPUTER ACCOUNTING & TAX PTY LTD (ACN 009 470 490) (IN LIQ)

First Applicant

COMPUTER ACCOUNTING & TAX PTY LTD (ACN 009 470 490) (IN LIQ)

Second Applicant

AND:

KELLY-ANNE TRENFIELD AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF ANGELA CECILIA THERESA FRIGGER, A BANKRUPT

First Respondent

KELLY-ANNE TRENFIELD AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF HARTMUT HUBERT JOSEF FRIGGER, A BANKRUPT

Second Respondent

ANGELA CECILIA THERESA FRIGGER, A…

Continue reading Kitay (Liquidator) v Trenfield (Trustee)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kitay (Liquidator) v Trenfield (Trustee) [2021] FCA 508
Case
[2021] FCA 508
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Kitay (Liquidator) v Trenfield (Trustee), the matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute revolves around an application for leave under section 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to continue Supreme Court proceedings concerning provable claims linked with other claims. The liquidator of a bankrupt entity, CAT, sought leave to continue prosecuting a counterclaim in ongoing Supreme Court proceedings, which have been ongoing for over a decade. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants, CAT and Mr Kitay, should be granted leave to proceed with the counterclaim under the specified section of the Bankruptcy Act.

The court examined the complexity of the facts and the legal issues involved in the case. Given the protracted nature of the Supreme Court proceedings, the court recognised that further delays or permanent stays could result in significant waste of time and increased costs. Additionally, the uncertainty regarding the provability of other claims could further exacerbate these costs if leave was not granted. The court concluded that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion in favour of granting the applicants leave to proceed with the counterclaim, as necessary, under section 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act.

The Federal Court granted the application, allowing CAT and Mr Kitay to take all necessary steps to continue the prosecution of the counterclaim in the Supreme Court proceedings, including any interlocutory applications. The court ordered that the costs of the application be jointly and severally paid by the bankrupt estates of Angela Cecilia Theresa Frigger and Hartmut Hubert Josef Frigger and assessed accordingly. This decision ensures that the applicants can proceed with their counterclaim without unnecessary delays, while also considering the financial implications for the involved parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. If and to the extent that leave is necessary under s 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), the applicants have leave to take all and any further steps in connection with the prosecution of the counterclaim in Supreme Court of Western Australia proceedings CIV 2765 of 2010, and all or any interlocutory applications and steps, including as against the bankrupt estates of Angela Cecilia Theresa Frigger and Hartmut Hubert Josef Frigger.

2. The applicants' costs of this application are costs, jointly and severally, in and are to be paid from the bankrupt estates of Angela Cecilia Theresa Frigger and Hartmut Hubert Josef Frigger and are to be assessed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

It is also relevant to the exercise of the discretion that the Supreme Court proceedings have been on foot for more than 10 years and it is likely to add to waste of time and cost if further aspects of them are permanently stayed. The uncertainty I have noted about whether other claims are provable is likely to compound that cost considerably if leave is not granted.Conclusion For those reasons, I determined that it was appropriate to grant CAT and Mr Kitay leave to proceed with the counterclaim in the Supreme Court Action, if and to the extent that such leave was necessary under s 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.