Sheahan v Cooper

Case [1999] FCA 766


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sheahan v Cooper [1999] FCA 766

BANKRUPTCY – agreement to transfer share of property – whether agreement created a trust in the equitable interest in the property – transfer occurred later – whether transfer a sham under s 120 – whether interest transferred at all – whether consideration existed for the transfer – whether transfer for market value.

BANKRUPTCY – whether bankrupt was, or was about to become insolvent at the time of transfer of land.

TRUSTS – whether constructive trust could be created where trustee in bankruptcy asserted title.

TRUSTS – apportionment of interests under Baumgartner principle.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 116, 120 and 121
Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Act 1996 Sch 1 Pt 2 Item 457

Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137 applied
Sharrment Pty Ltd v Official Receiver in Bankruptcy (1988) 18 FCR 449 considered
Donnelly (Trustee of Estate of Edelsten) v Edelsten (1994) 49 FCR 384 considered
Ex parte Holthausen; Re Scheibler (1874) LR 9 Ch App 722 considered
Re Bastable; Ex parte Trustee [1901] 2 KB 518 considered
Re Sharpe [1980] 1 All ER 198 considered
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583 applied
Osborn; Ex parte Trustee of the Property of Osborn (A Bankrupt) v Osborn (1990) 25 FCR 547 distinguished
Calverley v Green (1985) 155 CLR 242 considered
Ashton v Prentice (Federal Court, Hill J, unreported, 23 October 1998) considered

JOHN SHEAHAN as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of RICHARD JOHN COOPER v NOELENE MICHELLE COOPER

S 7017 OF 1999

MANSFIELD J

ADELAIDE
8 JUNE 1999


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S 7017 OF 1999

IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF
RICHARD JOHN COOPER

BETWEEN:

JOHN SHEAHAN
as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of
RICHARD JOHN COOPER
Applicant

AND:

NOELENE MICHELLE COOPER
Respondent

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 JUNE 1999

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed.

2.Pursuant to O 52 r 14 the time from which the period runs for the institution of an appeal be fixed at 8 June 1999.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S 7017 OF 1999

IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF
RICHARD JOHN COOPER

BETWEEN:

JOHN SHEAHAN
as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of
RICHARD JOHN COOPER
Applicant

AND:

NOELENE MICHELLE COOPER
Respondent

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE:

8 JUNE 1999

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The claim

  1. The applicant John Sheahan (“Mr Sheahan”) was appointed trustee of the bankrupt estate of Richard John Cooper (“Mr Cooper”) on 20 April 1998.

  2. Mr Sheahan promptly identified the land in Certificate of Title Register Book Volume 4257 Folio 921 (“the property”) apparently as being owned by Mr Cooper and by the respondent Noelene Michelle Cooper (“Ms Cooper”).  The land was acquired by Mr Cooper and Ms Cooper on 26 February 1986, shortly before they were married in August…

Continue reading Sheahan v Cooper

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sheahan v Cooper [1999] FCA 766
Case
[1999] FCA 766
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sheahan v Cooper involved a dispute over the transfer of shares in a property between the bankrupt, Mr Sheahan, and Mr Cooper. The dispute came before the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue was whether the agreement to transfer the share of the property created a trust in the equitable interest in the property. Another issue was whether the transfer was a sham under section 120, whether the interest was transferred at all, and if there was consideration for the transfer. Additionally, the court considered whether the transfer was for market value and whether the bankrupt was, or was about to become, insolvent at the time of the transfer.

The court determined that the agreement did not create a trust in the equitable interest in the property, as there was no intention to create a trust. The court also found that the transfer was not a sham and that the interest was indeed transferred. However, the court held that the transfer was not for market value, as there was no evidence of consideration for the transfer. Furthermore, the court found that the bankrupt was, or was about to become, insolvent at the time of the transfer. The court also considered the Baumgartner principle and determined that the interests should be apportioned accordingly.

The court dismissed the application and fixed the time for the institution of an appeal. The decision highlights the importance of clear intentions and consideration when transferring property interests, as well as the consequences of insolvency on property transfers.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. Pursuant to O 52 r 14 the time from which the period runs for the institution of an appeal be fixed at 8 June 1999.

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.