Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BANKRUPTCY - Moneys paid to solicitor as stakeholder under contract of sale of land - Contract terminated - Purchaser entitled to stake money - Solicitor wrongly paid out stake money to vendor - Solicitor executed Deed of Arrangement under Part X Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) - Solicitor insured under professional indemnity policy - Purchaser claims right to indemnity and proceeds of insurance - Whether purchaser or all the creditors of the solicitor are entitled to the right to claim indemnity and the proceeds of insurance - Whether right to claim indemnity is "property" of bankrupt which vests in trustee - Whether right to claim indemnity and proceeds is property divisible amongst creditors - Whether indemnity and proceeds held on constructive trust for the purchaser Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 5(1), 116(1), 116(2)(a), 117(1), 132, 134(1), 134(2), 187(1), 222, 229(1), 231(2), 236, 237 Corporations Law s 564 Legal Profession Practice Act 1958 (Vic) ss 40(1), 64(3), 88K, 88L Re Harrington Motor Co Ltd; Ex parte Chaplin [1928] 1 Ch 105, applied In re Richardson; Ex parte The Governors of St Thomas's Hospital [1911] 2 KB 705, distinguished The Bell Group Ltd (in liquidation) v Westpac Banking Corporation (1996) 22 ACSR 337, considered Kitson v Hardwick (1872) LR 7 CP 473, considered Seear v Lawson (1880) 15 Ch D 426, considered Guy v Churchill (1888) 40 Ch D 481, considered Ramsey v Hartley [1977] 1 WLR 686, considered Re Nguyen: Ex parte Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1992) 35 FCR 320, considered Cotterill v Bank of Singapore (Australia) Ltd (1995) 37 NSWLR 238, considered UTSA Pty Ltd (in liq) v Ultra Tune Australia Pty Ltd (1996) 21 ACSR 251 and, on appeal, in 21 ACSR 457, considered Re Movitor Pty Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 380, considered Cummings v Claremont Petroleum NL (1996) 185 CLR 124, considered Re Tosich Construction Pty Ltd; Ex parte Wily (1997) 143 ALR 18, 32, considered Hood's Trustees v Southern Union General Insurance Co of A'asia Ltd [1928] 1 Ch 793, applied Potters v Loppert [1973] Ch 399, considered Hastingwood Property Ltd v Saunders Bearman & Anselm (a firm) [1991] Ch 114, considered Re Burman [1993] 1 Qd R 49, considered Harrington v Hoggart (1830) 1 B & Ad 577, considered Christie v Robinson (1904) 4 CLR 1338, considered Henderson v Gray & Winter and Solicitors Liability Committee (Supreme Court of Victoria, Eames J, 20 Oct 1995, unreported), considered Moshinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583, considered Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137, considered Goldsborough Mort & Co Ltd v Maurice (1937) 58 CLR 773, considered
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