Federal Court of Australia
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
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate