Nass and Addens and Ors and Addens and Anor v Nass and Anor

The case of *Nass and Addens and Ors and Addens and Anor v Nass and Anor* involved a dispute concerning property and bankruptcy matters, heard by His Honour Judge Wilson. The primary dispute revolved around a proposed settlement between the trustees in bankruptcy and the wife of an undischarged bankrupt, which the bankrupt sought to object to. A related family law proceeding concerning property division between the husband and wife was also before the court, with an application by the parties' eldest daughter to intervene in relation to the former matrimonial home.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether a previously existing financial agreement between the bankrupt and his wife provided a basis for the bankrupt to object to the trustees' settlement with the wife, and whether the bankrupt had standing to object in the capacity of an amicus curiae. Secondly, the court had to consider the daughter's application to intervene, specifically whether she possessed an enforceable equitable interest in the former matrimonial home, and if so, whether her failure to lodge a caveat or articulate her position against the trustees precluded her intervention. Finally, the court was asked to approve the proposed settlement between the trustees in bankruptcy and the wife.

His Honour Judge Wilson reasoned that the financial agreement was not enforceable subsequent to the appointment of the trustees in bankruptcy, and therefore did not found the bankrupt's objection. The court found that the bankrupt was not acting as an amicus curiae and that there were no grounds to deny the operation of the *Bankruptcy Act*. Regarding the daughter's intervention, the court noted her failure to notify her interest by lodging a caveat and her lack of articulation of her position against the trustees, leading to the refusal of her application to intervene. The court ultimately approved the proposed settlement as between the trustees in bankruptcy and the wife.

The court made orders by consent, which provided for a settlement sum of $136,000 to be paid by the second respondent (the wife) to the applicants (the trustees). These orders finalised the proceedings between the applicants and the second respondent. In the event of non-payment by a specified date, the property was to be sold by trustees for sale, with detailed provisions regarding the sale process, distribution of proceeds, and the trustees' remuneration. The court also ordered that each party bear their own costs.