TRUSTEE FOR THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF N LASIC & LASIC

This case concerned an application by the trustee of a bankrupt estate, who sought to set aside consent orders made between a husband and wife. The dispute arose because the consent orders, which involved the transfer of significant assets to the wife, were made without disclosure of pending litigation against the husband and had the effect of preventing the husband from satisfying any judgment debt. The trustee argued that these orders were made in circumstances that rendered them voidable, particularly as they unjustly enriched the wife and prejudiced the husband's creditors. The matter came before Stevenson J.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trustee had standing to challenge the consent orders as a "person affected" and, if so, whether the consent orders should be set aside. The court was also required to consider the nature and enforceability of a solicitor's equitable lien, as discussed in the extensive *ratio decidendi* provided, in the context of the funds ordered to be paid by the wife.

Stevenson J, after considering the Full Court's findings on the trustee's standing, concluded that the evidence amply supported the trustee's status as a "person affected" by the consent orders. The court applied the principles regarding a solicitor's equitable lien, as outlined in *Firth v Centrelink* and other authorities, which establish that such a lien is a proprietary interest in the recovered fund and can survive insolvency. The court ordered the wife to pay specific sums to the trustee and an intervener, and imposed restraints on her ability to deal with certain assets pending full payment, thereby enforcing the equitable rights of the trustee and intervener.