Mateljan v HTT Huntley Heritage Pty Ltd

(2016) 111 ACSR 277; [2016] NSWCA 20

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Bankruptcy
2. › Property of bankrupt
3. › Vesting in trustee
4. › Relation-back of bankruptcy
5. › Whether power to appoint receiver under charge was property vesting in trustee
6. › Whether dealings after act of bankruptcy effective
7. › Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss 5, 58, 115, 116
1. Equity
2. › Assignments in equity
3. › Assignment of causes of action
4. › Whether purported assignment effective where assignor's power derived from bankrupt chargeholders
5. › Whether causes of action assignable
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Substitution of parties
3. › Substitution motion on appeal
4. › Whether assignee entitled to be substituted as appellant
5. › Whether proceedings properly constituted without joinder of trustee in bankruptcy
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Jurisdiction
3. › Special federal matter
4. › Whether question of property vesting in trustee in bankruptcy constitutes matter in bankruptcy
5. › Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), ss 3, 4, 6
6. › Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 27

Quick Take

A power to appoint a receiver under a charge is 'property' of the chargeholder that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy upon the relation-back date under ss 58, 115 and 116 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). Any purported exercise of that power by the bankrupt after the act of bankruptcy is of no effect, and any assignment of the debtor company's assets made by a receiver so appointed is also ineffective. A substitution motion based on such an assignment will be dismissed, particularly where the trustee in bankruptcy has not been joined.