Pridmore v Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 152

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pridmore v Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 152 PROCEDURE – amended statement of claim – strike out application – whether equitable claims precluded by relevant legislation – whether plea of unequivocal election to surrender in equity arguable – whether plea of estoppel arguable – whether prayer for relief appropriate. BANKRUPTCY – whetherequitable claims able to be enforced by bankrupt - whether Act an exclusive code – whether equitable claims vest in Official Receiver or trustee.

Bankruptcy Act (Cth) 1966, ss 58, 60, 73, 116

Cummings v Claremont Petroleum (1990) 185 CLR 124, considered W R Henry & Son v Hodge (1963) 20 ABC 87, cited Coyne v Commercial Equity Corporation Ltd (unreported WA Supreme Court FC, 28 July 1998, Kennedy, Franklyn & Walsh JJ), cited Faulkner v Bluett (1981) 52 FLR 115, followed Re Gordons Will Trusts [1978] Ch 145, considered Walton Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 423, considered PRIDMORE & ORS v MAGENTA NOMINEES PTY LTD & ORS WAG 164 of 1998 R D NICHOLSON 25 FEBRUARY 1999 SYDNEY (Heard in PERTH)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAG 164 OF 1998

BETWEEN: ANTHONY CHARLES PRIDMORE

First Applicant

HANS LOTHAR WITTE

Second Applicant

MARINA PRIDMORE

Third Applicant

RENATE WITTE

Fourth Applicant

AND: MAGENTA NOMINEES PTY LTD

First Respondent

HALL CHADWICK (A FIRM)

Second Respondent

JUDGE: R D NICHOLSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 25 FEBRUARY 1999

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY ( Heard in PERTH )

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The draft orders be held over on the following basis: (1) within 10 days the applicant file and serve written submissions on how, if at all, the orders should apply to the third and fourth applicants. (2) Within a further 10 days the respondent file and serve written submissions in response. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.