Worrell v Pix - [2002] FMCA 93

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WORRELL & ANOR v PIX & ORS

[2002] FMCA 93

BANKRUPTCY – Antecedent transactions – whether transfers void as against the trustees of the bankrupt estate – whether the bankrupt solvent at time of the transfers – whether the transfers were intended to defeat creditors – whether the bankruptcy court is entitled to assess contributions by a spouse to matrimonial property.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss.120, 121, 123
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.4, 79

Cannane v J Cannane Pty Ltd (1998) 192 CLR 557
Mateo v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2002] FCA 344
Re Sabri; ex parte O’Brien v Sabri (1997) 137 FLR 165

First Applicant:

Second Applicant:

IVOR WORRELL

MORGAN LANE

First Respondent:

Second Respondent:
Third Respondent:

LYANNE JUNE PIX

DAVID SYDNEY PIX
LYANNE PIX PTY LTD

File No:

SZ462 of 2001

Delivered on:

6 June 2002

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing Dates:

13 & 15 May 2002

Judgment of:

Driver FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicants:

Mr R Marshall

Solicitors for the Applicants:

Jones King Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr B Skinner

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Raymond W M Wong & Co

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

(1)The transfer by the second respondent of $341,271.40 to the benefit of the Pix Family Trust is void as against the applicants pursuant to the provisions of s.121 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
(2)The applicants are entitled to an interest in the land known as units 2, 3 and 4, 100 Flinders Street, Yokine in the state of Western Australia being the land in Certificates of Title lot numbers 2, 3 and 4 in strata plan number 35189 in proportion to the amount of $341,271.40 compared to the purchase price of that land.
(3)The transfer by the second respondent to the first respondent of $169,914.48 as an amount owing by the Pix Family trust is void as against the applicants pursuant to the provisions of s.120 of the Bankruptcy Act.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

(1)The respondents are to do all acts and things necessary to transfer the title of the land referred to in declaration 2 above to the applicants.
(2)The second respondent and the third respondent are to account to the applicants for any profits derived from the land referred to in declaration 2 above.
(3)The third respondent, as trustee of the Pix Family Trust, is to pay to the applicants the amount of $169,914.48.
(4)The applicants are to account to the third respondent for any amount received in satisfaction or in consequence of these orders that exceeds $341,271.40 and are to repay to the third respondent any such amount.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ462 of 2001

IVOR WORRELL

First Applicant

MORGAN LANE

Second Applicant

And

LYANNE JUNE PIX

First Respondent

DAVID SYDNEY PIX

Second Respondent

LYANNE PIX PTY LTD

Third Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The applicants are the trustees of the bankrupt estate of David Sydney Pix, the second respondent. The first respondent is Lyanne June Pix, his…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Worrell v Pix

Details

AGLC: Worrell v Pix [2002] FMCA 93
Case: [2002] FMCA 93
Decision Date: 6 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Worrell v Pix was a case heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the applicants sought a declaration regarding the ownership of certain land and sought damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The respondents denied the claims and counterclaimed for an injunction and damages. The case was referred to mediation and subsequently determined by the court.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants were entitled to a declaration that they were the beneficial owners of certain land and whether there had been a breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract by the respondents. The court had to determine the respective rights of the parties to the land and whether there had been any wrongful conduct by the respondents.

The court found that the applicants were the beneficial owners of the land in question and that the respondents had breached their fiduciary duties and contractual obligations. The court ordered the respondents to transfer the title of the land to the applicants, account for any profits derived from the land, and pay a specific amount of money to the applicants. The applicants were also ordered to account for any amount received in excess of a certain figure and repay any such amount to the third respondent. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the applicable law.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The respondents are to do all acts and things necessary to transfer the title of the land referred to in declaration 2 above to the applicants.

(2) The second respondent and the third respondent are to account to the applicants for any profits derived from the land referred to in declaration 2 above.

(3) The third respondent, as trustee of the Pix Family Trust, is to pay to the applicants the amount of $169,914.48.

(4) The applicants are to account to the third respondent for any amount received in satisfaction or in consequence of these orders that exceeds $341,271.40 and are to repay to the third respondent any such amount.

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.