Liristis v Gadelrabb (No 2)

In *Liristis v Gadelrabb (No 2)*, the proceedings concerned an appeal by Mr Liristis against a decision of the primary judge. The core dispute revolved around whether legal proceedings initiated by Mr Liristis, relating to contractual arrangements concerning real property, were deemed to have been abandoned under section 60 of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth). This section requires a trustee in bankruptcy to elect to prosecute or discontinue legal proceedings, and it also contains provisions regarding the abandonment of proceedings if the trustee has not had notice of them for a specified period. The respondent, Mr Gadelrabb, had also alleged an inability to attend court due to a medical condition and treatment.

The Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the proceedings brought by Mr Liristis, concerning contractual arrangements in relation to real property, qualified as proceedings "for personal injury or wrong done to the bankrupt" for the purposes of section 60 of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth). Secondly, the Court had to consider whether the trustee had notice of the proceedings for the requisite 28-day period, and if not, whether the proceedings were therefore deemed to be abandoned under section 60(3) of the Act. The Court also considered the respondent's alleged inability to attend court due to a medical condition.

Basten JA, applying section 60 of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth), found that the proceedings did not concern personal injury or wrong done to the bankrupt, but rather contractual arrangements. Consequently, the provisions of section 60 regarding the trustee's election to prosecute or discontinue were not engaged in the manner contemplated by the Act for such claims. Crucially, the Court determined that the trustee had not had notice of the proceedings for the statutory period, leading to the conclusion that the proceedings were deemed to have been abandoned pursuant to section 60(3). The Court also addressed the respondent's medical condition, but this did not prevent the determination of the abandonment issue.

The Court declared that the proceedings brought by Mr Liristis were deemed to have been abandoned pursuant to s 60(3) of the *Bankruptcy Act*. The Court also lifted the stay previously imposed on the proceedings and vacated the date for the hearing of the application for leave to appeal. Finally, the Court dismissed the proceedings.