The Court held that a discharged bankrupt lacks standing to pursue pre-bankruptcy causes of action that vested in the trustee in bankruptcy absent an assignment of the chose in action or consent from the trustee, even where the trustee abandoned or elected to discontinue the proceeding under s 60(3) of the Bankruptcy Act. The Court further held that the claimant's interest in the Bingil Bay Property was not held on trust for her ex-husband under s 116(2)(a), as the presumption of advancement applied to a husband making mortgage payments on property in his wife's sole name, and insufficient evidence was adduced to rebut that presumption; nor did s 79 of the Family Law Act create any trust or equitable interest in the absence of actual court orders under that provision. Most of the claimant's counterclaims were characterised as essentially referable to alleged damage to property and financial rights rather than personal injury or wrong within s 116(2)(g), and accordingly vested in the trustee.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.