Thompson v Lane

Case [2025] QSC 128

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Thompson v Lane [2025] QSC 128

PARTIES:

EMMA THOMPSON

(plaintiff)

v
MORGAN LANE

(defendant)

FILE NO:

1302 of 2025

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 May 2025, 6 May 2025, 13 May 2025 and 19 May 2025

JUDGE:

Sullivan J

ORDER:

This proceeding commenced by the plaintiff’s claim filed
31 March 2025 is transferred to the Federal Court of Australia pursuant to s 6(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth).

CATCHWORDS:

BANKRUPTCY – BANKRUPTCY COURTS – TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS – where the defendant, in his capacity as trustee in bankruptcy for the plaintiff, had real property registered in his name – where the plaintiff seeks final relief under the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) to compel the plaintiff’s trustee in bankruptcy to transfer the title of the property to the plaintiff – where the defendant trustee brought a summary judgment application against the plaintiff seeking dismissal of the proceeding – where the plaintiff brought a summary judgment application seeking the final relief – where the real issues involve consideration of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Queensland – whether designated Federal Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy proceedings – whether bankruptcy jurisdiction is revested in the Supreme Court of Queensland by s 4 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) – whether there are ‘special reasons’ justifying an order pursuant to s 6(3) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) – whether the proceeding should be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 5, s 27, s 31, s 58, s 116, s 143, s 148, s 149, s 149B, s 153
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), s 3,
s 4, s 6
Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), s 188, s 188A, s 188B
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 53

Cordes v Dr Peter Ironside Pty Ltd [2010] 2 Qd R 235
Gomez v Carrafa [2020] VSC 661
In the matter of Galtari Pty Ltd (In liq) [2018] NSWSC 917
Jakimowicz v Jacks [2016] VSCA 42
Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2008] FCAFC 172
Scott v Bagshaw (2000) 99 FCR 573
Thompson v Lane (No. 3) (Trustee) [2022] FCA 128
Thompson v Lane (Trustee) [2023] FCAFC 32
Thompson v Lane [2024] FCA 1234
Truthful Endeavour Pty Ltd v Condon (Trustee) Re Rayhill (Bankrupt) (2015) 233 FCR 174
Turner v Gorkowski [2014] VSCA 248

COUNSEL:

The plaintiff appeared on her own behalf
S L Philippou for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

The plaintiff appeared on her own behalf
Shand Taylor Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

  1. Ms Emma Thompson has brought a proceeding in the Supreme Court of Queensland against a Mr Morgan Lane, who was appointed on 1 July 2020 as Ms Thompson’s trustee in bankruptcy.

  2. Ms Thompson seeks final relief under ss…

Continue reading Thompson v Lane

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Thompson v Lane [2025] QSC 128
Case
[2025] QSC 128
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Thompson v Lane, the plaintiff, Emma Thompson, sought final relief from the Supreme Court of Queensland to compel her former trustee in bankruptcy, Mr. Lane, to transfer the title of a real property to her. The defendant, Mr. Lane, had brought a summary judgment application against the plaintiff seeking dismissal of the proceeding, while the plaintiff had also brought a summary judgment application seeking the final relief. The central legal issues were whether the designated Federal Courts had exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy proceedings and if bankruptcy jurisdiction was revested in the Supreme Court of Queensland by section 4 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth). Additionally, the court had to determine whether there were 'special reasons' justifying an order pursuant to section 6(3) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) and whether the proceeding should be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia.

The court examined the jurisdictional framework and concluded that the designated Federal Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy proceedings, and that bankruptcy jurisdiction is not revested in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court also found that there were special reasons justifying the transfer of the proceeding to the Federal Court of Australia, primarily due to the complexity of the issues involved and the need for consistency in the interpretation and application of bankruptcy laws across jurisdictions. The court ruled that the proceeding should be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia to ensure proper jurisdiction and to maintain the integrity of bankruptcy law.

The court ordered that the proceeding commenced by the plaintiff’s claim filed on 31 March 2025 be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia pursuant to section 6(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth). This order includes the transfer of the unresolved interlocutory applications. The parties will be heard on costs in accordance with prior directions for the receipt of written submissions on the issue.

Orders

Orders of the court

This proceeding commenced by the plaintiff’s claim filed

31 March 2025 is transferred to the Federal Court of Australia pursuant to s 6(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth).

Background

Background to the litigation

These reasons will be structured by setting out the relevant background facts, dealing with each of the real issues listed above, and then articulating appropriate orders arising from the conclusions reached on the real issues.Background facts Ms Thompson became bankrupt by way of the acceptance of a debtor’s petition on 1 July 2020. On that date, Mr Lane was appointed her trustee in bankruptcy. Sometime later in 2021, Ms Thompson commenced proceedings seeking an annulment of her bankruptcy in the Federal Court of Australia. That proceeding was unsuccessful. The reasons for the dismissal of that proceeding were delivered by Logan J on 18 February 2022 in Thompson v Lane (Trustee) (No 3) [2022] FCA 128. Ms Thompson then appealed from the decision of Logan J to the Full Court of the Federal Court. Ms Thompson was also unsuccessful on that appeal. The reasons on appeal were delivered on 10 March 2023 in Thompson v Lane (Trustee) [2023] FCAFC 32. On 2 July 2023, Ms Thompson was discharged from bankruptcy after three years, as a result of the operation of s 149 of the Bankruptcy Act. It is uncontroversial that when a person is discharged from his or her bankruptcy they have the benefit of the effect of s 153 of the Bankruptcy Act, so that the bankrupt is released from a large proportion of his or her debts which were provable in the bankruptcy.[2] [2]Some provable debts are not discharged, see s 153(2) of the Bankruptcy Act. On 17 October 2023, Ms Thompson commenced fresh proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, whereby she sought an order to the effect that Mr Lane cease to act as trustee of her bankrupt estate.[3] Ms Thompson sought interim relief in that proceeding to the effect that Mr Lane cease acting as trustee and Mr Lane pay to Ms Thompson an amount of funds, which he had held in that capacity.[4][3]Thompson v Lane [2024] FCA 1234 at [9].[4]Thompson v Lane [2024] FCA 1234 at [10]. On 23 February 2024,[5] Mr Lane in his capacity as trustee, had the real property at 3/40 Glen Road, Toowong (the “Toowong Unit”) registered as “THE TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF EMMA THOMPSON, A BANKRUPT.”[5]Ms Thompson pleaded that the property was registered in the trustee’s name on 28 February 2024 at paragraph [4] of her Statement of Claim, however the title search shows it was registered in his name as trustee on 23 February 2024. The exact date is immaterial to the matters to be determined in these reasons. The entitlement for that transfer of the Toowong Unit is said by Mr Lane to be based on ss 58(1) and 58(2) of the Bankruptcy Act. Mr Lane says that he remains trustee of the property of Emma Thompson, irrespective of her personal discharge from bankruptcy. The interim relief sought in the 2023 Federal Court proceeding was refused on 24 October 2024 by Collier J for the reasons expressed in Thompson v Lane [2024] FCA 1234. In those reasons, Collier J rejected Ms Thompson’s contention that her discharge from bankruptcy pursuant to s 149 of the Bankruptcy Act brought Mr Lane’s role as trustee in bankruptcy to an end. Her Honour found that this contention by Ms Thompson did not give rise to a serious question to be tried. By reference to both the statute and authority, Collier J succinctly explained why the discharge of Ms Thompson as a bankrupt under s 149:(a)did not halt an ongoing and incomplete administration of the bankruptcy; and (b)did not revest property from Mr Lane back to Ms Thompson.[6][6]Thompson v Lane [2024] FCA 1234 at [25].

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

As a consequence, I will order this proceeding to be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia pursuant to s 6(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth).Conclusion The order of the Court will be:1.This proceeding commenced by the plaintiff’s claim filed 31 March 2025 is transferred to the Federal Court of Australia pursuant to s 6(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth). This order will necessarily include the transfer of the unresolved interlocutory applications. I will hear the parties on costs in accordance with the prior directions I have made for the receipt of written submissions on the issue.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.