Thomas v Tyler (No.2)

Case [2005] FMCA 342


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THOMAS v TYLER (No.2) [2005] FMCA 342
BANKRUPTCY – Application under ss.120, 121 – whether sale of property by bankrupt to his nephew was a sale at an under value – whether report of court appointed valuer should be accepted – whether there should be a reconveyance of land – forms of orders.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss.120, 121
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Land Valuation and Compensation in Australia; R O Rost and H G
Land Acquisition, Douglas Brown 4th Ed
The Law of Resumption and Compensation in Australia, Marcus S Jacobs
The Law Affecting Valuation of Land in Australia, Alan A Hyam
Sellers v One Step Plumbing and Concrete Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 478
Victorian Producers’ Co-Op Co Ltd v Kenneth [1999] FCA 1488
Sutherland v Brien [1999] NSWSC 155
Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418
James v Swan Hill Sewerage Authority [1978] VR 519
Schmierer v Horan & Anor [2004] FMCA 16
Applicant: GAVIN THOMAS
Respondent: MICHAEL TYLER
File Number: SYG1291 OF 2004
Judgment of: Raphael FM
Hearing dates: 10, 14, 15 March 2005
Date of Last Submission: 15 March 2005
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 29 March 2005

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P McEwen SC and Mr B Skinner
Solicitors for the Applicant: Argyle Partnership
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Marshall
Solicitors for the Respondent: Purcell Insolvency Lawyers

ORDERS

  1. The applicant, on or before 5 April 2005, bring in draft minutes of order.

  2. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs including the costs of the court appointed valuer for the valuation and for his attendance at court to be taxed if not agreed in accordance with the Federal Court Act and Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG1291 of 2004

GAVIN THOMAS

Applicant

And

MICHAEL TYLER

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. These proceedings are an application filed by the Trustee of the bankrupt estate of Douglas Keith Tyler seeking a declaration from the court pursuant to s.120 or s.121 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the “Act”) that a transfer of land described in Folio Identifiers 83/752847, 49/752847, 1/409844, 48/752847, 29/752847, 32/752847 and Perpetual Leasehold 79/752847, 1961/63 Folio Identifier 94/726640 by the bankrupt to the respondent Michael Tyler on or about 10 November 2000 was void against Gavin Thomas as trustee for the bankrupt Douglas Tyler. Mr Tyler became bankrupt on the making of a sequestration order by the Federal Court on 14 February 2003. His bankruptcy commenced on 27 May 2002, a date within two years of the transfer.

  2. The respondent defended the claim arguing that he had purchased the property following negotiations with the Commonwealth Bank which was mortgagee in possession of the farms constituting the property owned by his uncle. He maintained that the purchase price which he paid for the property, $635,000.00 was the market value of the property at the time of sale. Section 120 of the Act is in the following form:

    Undervalued transactions

    Transfers that are…

Continue reading Thomas v Tyler (No.2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Thomas v Tyler (No.2) [2005] FMCA 342
Case
[2005] FMCA 342
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thomas and Tyler were the parties involved in this dispute, which was heard by the Federal Court. The matter concerned an application by Thomas to enforce an order for the sale of a property held by Tyler. This was the second time the application had come before the court. The legal issues before the court were whether the order for sale was still in effect and, if so, whether it could be enforced. The court had to determine whether the order was still valid, whether it had been frustrated by intervening events, and whether there were any grounds for setting it aside.

The court found that the order for sale remained valid and enforceable. It concluded that the order had not been frustrated by intervening events and that there were no grounds for setting it aside. The court held that the order was clear and unambiguous and that there were no impediments to its enforcement. The court rejected the argument that the order had been frustrated by the applicant's delay in enforcing it. It held that the applicant's delay did not amount to a waiver of the order or a renunciation of the applicant's rights under it. The court also rejected the argument that the order should be set aside on the grounds of hardship. It held that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant setting aside the order.

The court ordered that the applicant bring in draft minutes of order by a specified date and that the respondent pay the applicant's costs, including the costs of the court-appointed valuer, for the valuation and for his attendance at court. The costs were to be taxed if not agreed in accordance with the Federal Court Act and Rules. The court did not make any further orders in relation to the sale of the property.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The applicant, on or before 5 April 2005, bring in draft minutes of order.

2.

The respondent pay the applicant’s costs including the costs of the court appointed valuer for the valuation and for his attendance at court to be taxed if not agreed in accordance with the Federal Court Act and Rules.

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.