Palmer v Penson (No 2)

The case of Palmer v Penson (No 2) involved the plaintiff, appointed as the receiver and manager of a property, seeking possession of the subject property from the defendant, who had become bankrupt but remained in possession. The plaintiff sought an order for possession and leave to issue a writ of possession. The defendant, as a bankrupt, did not have the standing to oppose the plaintiff’s application. The court had to determine if the defendant’s bankruptcy and lack of standing provided a defence to the receiver’s claim.

The central legal issue was whether the defendant’s bankruptcy and lack of standing to oppose the application meant there was no valid defence to the plaintiff's claim for possession of the property. The court also considered the implications of a stay on the reckoning of time for the purposes of an order under rule 36.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR). Specifically, the court needed to determine if a stay affects the day on which orders take effect.

The court held that the defendant’s bankruptcy meant they had no standing to oppose the application, and thus no defence to the claim. The court further found that a stay does not affect the day on which orders take effect under rule 36.4 of the UCPR. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff’s application for possession and leave to issue a writ of possession. The court's decision affirmed that the plaintiff, as receiver and manager, had the right to seek possession of the property from the defendant.