Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Waa

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read

Official Trustee In Bankruptcy v Waa
[2016] NTSC 69

PARTIES:OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY

v

HAERUSIAH WAA

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO:68 of 2016 (21635799)

DELIVERED:  15 December 2016

HEARING DATES:  27 October 2016

JUDGMENT OF:  MASTER LUPPINO

CATCHWORDS:

Jurisdiction of Courts – Whether the proposed proceedings alter the interest vested in Official Trustee by s 58 Bankruptcy Act – Whether this Court has jurisdiction to determine the Defendant’s proposed claim.

Practice and Procedure – Order to join a party – Considerations for the making of an order – Order to continue matter commenced by Originating Motion as if commenced by Writ and consequential orders – Considerations for the making of an order – Application for substituted service – Requirements for the making of an order for substituted service.

De Facto Relationships – Adjustment of property interests – Whether declaration of property interests is required as a preliminary to an adjustment of property interests – Extension of time to make application – Desirability of hearing all the evidence before deciding whether to grant the extension.

Bankruptcy – Whether proceedings alter the interest fixed by s 58 Bankruptcy Act.

Bankruptcy Act (Cth), ss 27, 58

De Facto Relationships Act ss 12, 13, 14

Law of Property Act s 40.

Supreme Court Rules, rr 4.04, 4.05, 4.06, 4.07, 6.09, 9.02, 9.06. 13.02.

O’Neil v Acott (1988) 59 NTR 1;

Bishop v Bridgelands Securities Ltd (1990) 25 FCR 311;

Payne v Young (1980) 145 CLR 609;

Australian Consumer And Competition Commission v Launceston Superstore Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 297;
Knight v Beyond Properties Pty Ltd (No 2) (2006) FCA 192;
CBI Contractors Pty Ltd v Abbott (No 2) [2009] FCA 1129.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:Mr George

Defendant:Ms Dargan

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:De Silva Hebron

Defendant:Withnalls Lawyers

Judgment category classification:    B

Judgment ID Number:  Lup1606

Number of pages:  20

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Official Trustee In Bankruptcy v Waa [2016] NTSC 69

No. 68 of 2016 (21635799)

BETWEEN:

Official Trustee In Bankruptcy

Plaintiff

AND:

Haerusiah Waa
Defendant

CORAM:     MASTER LUPPINO

REASONS

(Delivered 15 December 2016)

  1. The proceedings in this matter were commenced by Originating Motion filed 28 July 2016. The Plaintiff is the Official Trustee In Bankruptcy (“Official Trustee”) and the trustee of the bankrupt estate of Quentin Carlos (“Carlos”).

  2. The Plaintiff seeks orders in respect of the sale of a certain property. That property is co-owned by the Defendant and Carlos and it was their former matrimonial home. The Defendant claims that she and Carlos were de facto partners within the meaning of the De Facto Relationships Act (“DFR Act”).

  3. By summons filed 7 September 2016 the Defendant has, as a prelude to seeking orders for property adjustment in these proceedings, sought orders for the joinder of Carlos in his personal capacity[1], for the matter to proceed as if commenced by Writ and consequential orders, for…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Waa 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] NTSC 69
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy brought a case against Waa in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The Official Trustee, as the trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of a bankrupt, sought to establish that Waa's proposed proceedings would alter the interest vested in the Official Trustee by section 58 of the Bankruptcy Act. Waa proposed to claim an adjustment of property interests pursuant to the De Facto Relationships Act. The court was required to determine whether the proposed proceedings would alter the interest fixed by section 58 of the Bankruptcy Act, and whether the court had jurisdiction to determine Waa's proposed claim. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether an order to join a party, to continue the matter commenced by an originating motion as if commenced by writ, and for substituted service, should be made. Finally, the court had to consider whether an extension of time to make a claim pursuant to the De Facto Relationships Act should be granted.

The court found that the proposed proceedings would alter the interest vested in the Official Trustee by section 58 of the Bankruptcy Act, and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction to determine Waa's proposed claim. The court held that a declaration of property interests is not required as a preliminary to an adjustment of property interests under the De Facto Relationships Act. The court also found that the Defendant's proposed claim was in the nature of an adjustment of property interests under section 13 of the De Facto Relationships Act, and not a declaration of property interests under section 12. The court further held that an order to join a party, to continue the matter commenced by an originating motion as if commenced by writ, and for substituted service, should be made. Lastly, the court found that an extension of time to make a claim pursuant to the De Facto Relationships Act should be granted.

The court ordered that the matter be stayed until the expiry of the two-year period following the end of the de facto relationship, and that the Defendant's application be kept open for the purpose of determining whether an extension of time should be granted at the end of that period. The court also ordered that Carlos be joined as a party to the proceeding, that the matter proceed as if commenced by writ, and that affidavits be utilised in lieu of pleadings. Lastly, the court ordered that substituted service be effected on Carlos, and that the Defendant's application for an extension of time be kept open until the end of the two-year period.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff also argued that the relief proposed to be claimed by the Defendant, as set out in the Defendant’s supporting affidavit[2], is in the nature of a declaration pursuant to section 12 of the DFR Act. Section 12 of the DFR Act is now reproduced together with sections 13 and 14 as they are also relevant to these reasons.12 Declaration of interests in property(1)In any proceedings between de facto partners with respect to existing title or rights in respect of property, a court may declare the title or rights, if any, that a de facto partner has in respect of the property.(2)A court may make orders to give effect to a declaration under subsection (1), including orders as to possession.(3)An order under this section is binding on the de facto partners, but not on any other person.13 Application for order for adjustment(1)A de facto partner may apply to a court for an order under this Division for the adjustment of interests with respect to the property of the de facto partners or either of them.(2)An application may be made under subsection (1) whether or not an application for any other remedy or relief has been made, or may be made, under this Act or any other Act or law.14 Time limit for making application(1)Subject to subsection (2), where de facto partners have ended their de facto relationship, an application under section 13(1) must be made before the expiry of a period of 2 years beginning with the day after that on which the relationship ended.(2)A court may grant leave to a de facto partner to make an application under section 13(1) at any time after the period allowed by subsection (1) if the court is satisfied that greater hardship would be caused to that partner by refusing leave than would be caused to the other partner by granting it. Mr George submitted that any declaration made pursuant to section 12 of the DFR Act only binds the de facto partners and not third parties, such as the Official Trustee. On that basis it was submitted that the Defendant’s proposed claim was futile in any case. However on my reading of the DFR Act, the Defendant is not required to obtain a declaration pursuant to section 12 as a prelude to, or even in conjunction with, an application for an adjustment of property interests under section 13. Nor do I think that the Defendant is proposing to seek such a declaration. I think it is apparent from her affidavit that the Defendant seeks an adjustment under section 13 of the DFR Act. That section is not constrained in the same way as section 12 in respect of the rights of a third party. Having dealt with these preliminary issues, I turn to the Defendant’s application for orders for joinder of Carlos, for the matter to proceed as if commenced by Writ, for affidavits to be utilised in lieu of pleadings, for substituted service on Carlos and lastly for an extension of time to make a claim pursuant to the DFR Act. Substituted service is empowered by rule 6.09 of the Supreme Court Rules (“SCR”) which is set out hereunder.6.09 Substituted service(1)Where for any reason it is impracticable to serve a document in the manner required by this Chapter, the Court may order that, instead of service, such steps be taken as it specifies for the purpose of bringing the document to the notice of the person to be served.(2)Where the Court makes an order under subrule (1), it may order that the document be taken to have been served on the happening of a specified event or on the expiry of a specified time.(3)The Court may make an order under subrule (1) notwithstanding that the person to be served is out of the Territory or was out of the Territory when the proceeding commenced.