Szepesvary v Weston as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Aaron Szepesvary

In the case of Szepesvary v Weston as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Aaron Szepesvary, the appellant, Mr Szepesvary, sought to annul his bankruptcy on the basis that the sequestration order made against him was invalid as there was no valid legal assignment of debt. The primary judge had dismissed the application for annulment. The respondent, Mr Weston, was the trustee of the bankrupt estate of Aaron Szepesvary, and the case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the assignment of debts was valid and whether the primary judge had correctly excluded late-served and inadmissible evidence. The court had to determine whether the assignment of the debt was valid, and whether the primary judge had correctly excluded the late-served and inadmissible evidence of the affidavit of Ms Cindy Li and the hearing at which the sequestration order was made.

The court found that the assignment of the debt was valid and that the primary judge had not erred in excluding the late-served and inadmissible evidence. The court held that the assignment of the debt was valid as it was made for value and complied with the requirements of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic). The court also held that the primary judge had not erred in excluding the inadmissible evidence as the appellant had failed to challenge the evidence properly. The court held that the primary judge had correctly accepted the unchallenged evidence of Ms Li as she was not a witness and her affidavit was not properly before the court.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that if an order for costs was sought by the second respondent, the second respondent file any submissions within seven days limited to two pages. If submissions were filed in accordance with Order 2, the appellant file any submissions within a further seven days limited to two pages and the Court will thereafter determine the issue of costs on the papers. If no order for costs was sought in accordance with Order 2, then there be no order as to costs.