Makinna Pty Ltd (in liq) v Trives

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Makinna Pty Ltd (in liq) v Trives [2016] FCA 1247

File number(s): NSD 1493 of 2016
Judge(s): JAGOT  J
Date of judgment: 11 October 2016
Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – protection of debtor’s property pending sequestration order
Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Cases cited: Deputy of Commissioner of Taxation v Clyne (1983) 50 ALR 118
Date of hearing: 11 October 2016
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 20
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S Golledge
Solicitor for the Applicant: Matthews Folbigg Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: The respondent appeared in person

ORDERS

NSD 1493 of 2016
BETWEEN:

MAKINNA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Applicant

AND:

SIMON EDWARD TRIVES

Respondent

JUDGE:

JAGOT  J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 OCTOBER 2016

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1.Pursuant to s 50 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), Barry Anthony Taylor take control of the respondent debtor’s property including the proceeds of sale of the land comprised in certificate of title identifier 41/285800 being the land situated at 3 Caramar Close, Picton, New South Wales 2571, currently held in the amount of $541,045.51.

2.Such control cease on the making of a sequestration order in respect to the respondent or earlier order of the Court.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

3.The respondent pay the applicant’s costs as agreed or taxed.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JAGOT J:

  1. This is an application for directions pursuant to s 50(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act) which provides that at any time after a bankruptcy notice is issued or a creditor’s petition is presented in relation to a debtor, but before the debtor becomes a bankrupt, the Court may direct the Official Trustee or a specified registered trustee to take control of the debtor’s property and make any other orders in relation to the property. 

  2. The circumstances in which the application is brought by the liquidator of Makinna Pty Ltd (in liq) are explained in the evidence which has been tendered in support of the application and in the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicant. 

  3. In short, Mr Trives is formerly the sole director and shareholder of Makinna Pty Ltd, now in liquidation. The company was wound up on an application for an outstanding tax debt by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation.  The books and accounts of the company showed that Mr Trives was indebted to the company in the amount of $540,182.89.  Demands for payment were made by the liquidator on 6 November 2013, 28 November 2013 and 23 May 2014, but were not answered.  Examination summonses were issued, including to Mr Trives, and evidence was given on examination on 15 August 2016.

  4. The liquidator then moved to recover the outstanding loan amount from Mr Trives in the District Court of New South Wales, commencing…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Makinna Pty Ltd (in liq) v Trives and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2016] FCA 1247
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Makinna Pty Ltd, in liquidation, sought an interlocutory injunction to protect its property pending a sequestration order. Trives was the respondent and the applicant's principal creditor. The applicant sought to restrain the respondent from enforcing or otherwise acting on a security interest over certain assets, pending the determination of the sequestration application. The court was required to determine whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted, which would restrain the respondent from enforcing a security interest over certain assets until the determination of the sequestration application.

The court considered the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions, particularly the balance of convenience test. The court found that the balance of convenience favoured the granting of the injunction, as the applicant’s assets were at risk of being dissipated or encumbered, which would prejudice the interests of creditors generally. The court also considered the respondent’s argument that the applicant had not demonstrated a serious issue to be tried, but found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of a sequestration order. The court held that an interlocutory injunction should be granted, restraining the respondent from enforcing or otherwise acting on the security interest over the assets.

The court granted the applicant’s application for an interlocutory injunction, restraining the respondent from enforcing or otherwise acting on the security interest over the assets until the determination of the sequestration application. The court also ordered that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs as agreed or taxed. The court found that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction, and that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of a sequestration order. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the assets of debtors pending the determination of sequestration applications, in order to ensure that creditors are not prejudiced.

Orders

Orders of the court

3. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs as agreed or taxed.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.