Zaravinos v Houvardas

The appeal in *Zaravinos v Houvardas* concerned the validity of transfers of three properties from a husband to his former wife. The respondent, a creditor, sought to set aside these transfers under section 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), alleging they were made in bad faith and with the intention of defrauding creditors. The appellant, the former wife, contended she was the beneficial owner of the properties by way of a resulting trust, and that the transfers were therefore not fraudulent.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine several key legal issues. These included whether the transfers were made with the intent to defraud creditors, whether the appellant held a beneficial interest in the properties through a resulting trust, and the effect of a sequestration order on the appellant's claim. The court also considered whether the respondent qualified as a "person prejudiced" for the purposes of section 37A, the application of the doctrine of res judicata, and whether section 37A was inconsistent with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The impact of an open offer of settlement equivalent to the debt amount was also a point of consideration.

The court reasoned that the transfers were indeed made with the intention of defrauding creditors, and that the appellant had not established a resulting trust over the properties. The sequestration order was found to have significant implications for the appellant's claim. The court held that the respondent was a person prejudiced by the transfers and that section 37A was not inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Act. The doctrine of res judicata was also applied against the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.