Revis v Murphy - [2008] FMCA 1638

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REVIS v MURPHY

[2008] FMCA 1638

BANKRUPTCY – Annulment of bankruptcy – whether sequestration order should have been made considered.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s.52

Murphy v Revis [2008] FMCA 1561

Applicant:

RINA REVIS

Respondent:

ELEANOR MURPHY

File Number:

SYG 2494 of 2008

Judgment of:

Driver FM

Hearing date:

5 December 2008

Date of Last Submission:

10 December 2008

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

22 December 2008

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms J Merkel

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Eleanor Murphy & Co

Solicitors for the Official Trustee:

Mr S Mullette
Bartier Perry

ORDERS

Leave is granted for the applicant to rely upon her affidavit and further written submissions filed on 10 December 2008.
The annulment application is dismissed with costs.
The trustee’s costs of these proceedings be costs in the administration of the estate.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2494 of 2008

RINA REVIS

Applicant

And

ELEANOR MURPHY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction and background

By application filed on 25 September 2008 Ms Revis seeks an order under s.153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Bankruptcy Act”) annulling her bankruptcy. She asserts that she was denied natural justice at the time the sequestration order was made by this Court on 2 September 2008. In the alternative, Ms Revis seeks an order that the sequestration order be set aside for reason of denial of natural justice in the hearing of the creditor’s petition and that the creditor’s petition be fixed for hearing on another date. The application gave as the address for service “C/- David Landa Stewart Lawyers, 86-90 Bay Street, Broadway, NSW, 2007”. The email address of “ccunio@dls-lawyers.com” was also provided.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Colin Cunio made on 25 September 2008. The footer to that affidavit states that the affidavit was prepared by Mr Cunio, solicitor, of David Landa Stewart Lawyers of the same address given previously. The same email address is also given as well as telephone and facsimile contacts and the lawyers’ code.
The matter came before me on 11 November 2008 when Ms Revis appeared unrepresented. I adjourned to enable her solicitor to attend. A solicitor from the firm of David Landa Stewart later attended court and informed me that his firm did not act for Ms Revis, that Mr Cunio was no longer employed by the firm and was overseas and that Ms Revis had simply used the firm’s address as a “post box”. However, the firm had previously acted for her. I gave leave for the firm to withdraw from the record and a notice of withdrawal was filed on 3 December 2008.
The application is opposed by the petitioning creditor, Eleanor Murphy, on the following grounds:
1.The Debtor is out of time for any appeal.
2.There was no denial of natural justice to the Debtor who has been aware since April 2008 of 2 September 2008, the date set down for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Revis v Murphy

Details

AGLC: Revis v Murphy [2008] FMCA 1638
Case: [2008] FMCA 1638
Decision Date: 22 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Revis v Murphy involved a dispute between the applicant, Revis, and the respondent, Murphy, over a trust established under the will of a deceased individual. Revis sought the annulment of certain provisions within the trust deed, arguing that they were invalid and should be disregarded. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court was required to determine whether the provisions in question were indeed invalid and, if so, whether they should be annulled. Additionally, the court needed to consider the costs associated with the proceedings and whether they should be borne by the applicant, the respondent, or the estate itself.

The court examined the arguments presented by Revis regarding the invalidity of the trust provisions. It assessed the legal and factual basis of these arguments, considering the relevant statutory and common law principles applicable to the interpretation and validity of trust deeds. The court also deliberated on the implications of the proposed annulment for the administration of the estate and the interests of other beneficiaries. Ultimately, the court concluded that the provisions in question were valid and should not be annulled. The reasoning was grounded in the specific language of the trust deed, the intention of the testator, and the established legal precedents. The court also addressed the issue of costs, determining that the costs of the proceedings should be borne by the estate as costs in the administration of the estate.

The court dismissed the application for annulment and ordered that the applicant's costs be covered by the estate. This decision affirmed the validity of the trust provisions and maintained the integrity of the estate administration process. The dismissal of the application and the allocation of costs to the estate were seen as necessary to uphold the legal framework governing trusts and to protect the interests of all beneficiaries.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave is granted for the applicant to rely upon her affidavit and further written submissions filed on 10 December 2008.

The annulment application is dismissed with costs.

The trustee’s costs of these proceedings be costs in the administration of the estate.

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.