Re Dunn, William Robert Ex parte Andrew, William Edward [1981] FCA 60

CATCHWORDS Bankruptcy - Part X - application by Trustee of deed of assignment for declaration whether deed is void as it does not bear the seals of the parties - deed executed in New South Wales - New South Wales law deems deed to be sealed in certain circumstances - whether New South Wales law as lex loci contractus and proper law saves deed - discussion of s. 213 (2)

Bankruptcy Act, 1966 (Cth.) ss. 213, 222 Conveyancing Act, 1919 (N.S.W.) s. 38

RE: WILLIAM RICHARD DUNN EX PARTE: WILLIAM EDWARD ANDREW

LOCKHART J. FRIDAY 22 MAY 1981 AT SYDNEY

NO. 93 OF 1979/x

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GENERAL DIVISION

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE No. 93 of 1979/x

OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND THE

ee ee ee ew

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

RE: WILLIAM RICHARD DUNN EX PARTE: WILLIAM EDWARD ANDREW Applicant ORDERS JUDGE MAKING ORDERS: LOCKHART J. DATE OF ORDERS: FRIDAY 22 MAY 1981 WHERE MADE: AT SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. It be declared that the deed dated 18 May 1979 and made between William Richard Dunn as debtor and William James Hamilton as trustee being exhibit "A" in these proceedings is not void on

the ground that it does not in fact bear the seal of either of

the parties thereto.

2. The costs of the applicant of and incident to the application including reserved costs are to be paid out of the property of the

debtor assigned under the said deed of assignment.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GENERAL DIVISION

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE

No. 93 of 1979/x OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND THE

eee ew ww

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

RE: WILLIAM RICHARD DUNN EX PARTE: WILLIAM EDWARD ANDREW Applicant REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application by William Edward Andrew ("the applicant") pursuant to s. 222 (1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 ("the Act") for an order declaring whether an instrument purporting to be a deed of assignment under Part X of the Act, executed on 18 May 1979, between William Richard Dunn ("the debtor") and William James Hamilton ("the former trustee") is void on the ground that it was not sealed by either of the parties. In the event of the Court declaring the " instrument to be void, the applicant seeks certain consequential orders for the purpose, in effect, of validating it. The debtor was served with notice of these proceedings. He has not appeared; but his solicitors informed the solicitors for the applicant that the debtor has no objection to the making of any of the orders sought. The facts may be briefly stated. On 27 April 1979 the debtor executed an authority, pursuant to s. 188, authorising the