Zoureff, Pearl v Apel, Isaac - [1998] FCA 258

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BANKRUPTCY - Deed of arrangement - whether statement of affairs to creditors omitted a material particular - whether deed of arrangement entered into to defeat the interests of a particular creditor - where omission of trust distribution alleged - whether appropriate to view one trust in a network of trusts in isolation - alleged omission of entitlement to partnership drawings where such drawings limited by covenant with creditor - whether omission of right of contribution from partners material.

BANKRUPTCY - Deed of arrangement - principles governing exercise of jurisdiction to set aside or terminate - meaning of “in the interests of creditors to do so” where distinct classes of creditors with divergent interests - whether partnership creditors were entitled to consider the consequences of the debtor’s bankruptcy upon their continuing ability to recover from the debtor’s co-partners - whether differential impact of the Deed so unfair and unreasonable in its effect as between the classes as to warrant it being declared void.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 64ZE, s 141, s 222, s 236(1)(b) and (c), s 222, s 223A, s 237(2),

Re Bendel; ex parte Low Lippmann (Federal Court of Australia, April 19, 1996 Merkel J)
Re Cufari; Ex parte Commissioner of Taxation v Huppatz (1992) 34 FCR 544 at 549
Re Doukidis; Ex parte Consolidated Constructions Pty Ltd v Melson (Federal Court, 26 June 1985, Toohey J)
Re Burns; Ex parte National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd (1992) 39 FCR 477 (applied)
Chiragakis v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, (1986) 68 ALR 527 (applied)
Augustyn v Putnin (1988) 83 ALR 514 (applied)
Ex parte Russell; In Re Robins (1883) 22 ChD 778 (referred)
Paton v Campbell Capital Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 30 (referred)
NZI Capital Corporation v Lancaster (1991) 30 FCR 441 (referred)
Re Nassar; Advance Bank Australia Ltd v Nassar (Federal Court, 21 December 1994, von Doussa J) (applied)
Khera v National Australia Bank Ltd (1996) 141 ALR 416 (applied)
Re Gye and Perkes; Ex parte McIntyre (1989) 89 ALR 460 (considered)
Ex parte Russell; In Re Robins (1883) 22 ChD 778 (referred)
Vatcher v Paull [1915] AC 372 (referred)
Paton v Campbell Capital Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 30 (referred)
NZI Capital Corporation v Lancaster (1991) 30 FCR 441 (referred)

PEARL ZOUREFF (Applicant) v ISAAC APEL (First Respondent), JAMES PATRICK DOWNEY (Second Respondent)
VG 7522 of 1997

FINN J
CANBERRA (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)
11 MARCH 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 7522 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

PEARL ZOUREFF
APPLICANT

AND:

ISAAC APEL
FIRST RESPONDENT

JAMES PATRICK DOWNEY
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 MARCH 1998

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application be dismissed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 7522 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

PEARL ZOUREFF
APPLICANT

AND:

ISAAC APEL
FIRST RESPONDENT

JAMES PATRICK DOWNEY
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FINN J

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Zoureff, Pearl v Apel, Isaac and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1998] FCA 258
Decision Date: 11 MARCH 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pearl Zoureff sought judicial review of a decision made by Isaac Apel, who was acting in his capacity as the Registrar of Titles in South Australia. The nature of the dispute involved the registration of property titles and the subsequent rectification of a title defect. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Registrar had the authority to rectify the defect in the title without initiating formal proceedings under the relevant statutory provisions. This raised questions about the scope of the Registrar's powers and the procedural correctness of the rectification carried out.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the Registrar's functions and the applicable common law principles concerning administrative discretion and error correction. The key focus was on whether the statutory mechanism for rectification required formal proceedings to be initiated or if the Registrar had inherent powers to correct errors in titles without such formalities. The court found that the statutory provisions did not confer any inherent power on the Registrar to correct title defects without following the prescribed procedures. The court held that the Registrar's action in unilaterally rectifying the title was beyond the scope of his statutory authority and procedurally flawed. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Supreme Court of South Australia ordered that the application be dismissed, thereby upholding the procedural requirements set out in the statutory framework for title rectification. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory mandates and the limitations on the administrative powers of public officials in property registration matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application be dismissed.

Note:

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 7522 OF 1997

BETWEEN:	PEARL ZOUREFF APPLICANT
AND:	ISAAC APEL FIRST RESPONDENT JAMES PATRICK DOWNEY SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:		FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:		11 MARCH 1998
WHERE MADE:		CANBERRA (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 7522 OF 1997