Barlaw Pty Ltd v Crouch [2013] FCA 961

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barlaw Pty Ltd v Crouch [2013] FCA 961 Citation: Barlaw Pty Ltd v Crouch [2013] FCA 961

Appeal from: Barlaw Pty Ltd v Crouch [2011] FMCA 384

Parties: BARLAW PTY LTD TRADING AS BARRAK LAWYERS v NICHOLAS CROUCH AS TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF MARK ANTHONY BARTOLO

File number: NSD 1387 of 2011

Judge: NICHOLAS J

Date of judgment: 25 September 2013

Catchwords: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – appeal against order made by primary judge accepting registered trustee's resignation pursuant to s 180 of Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act) – where appellant major unsecured creditor – where bankrupt's family members claimed to be secured creditors – where appellant alleged registered trustee lacked independence, was actually biased and partial to interests of bankrupt and bankrupt's family – where no challenge to primary judge's rejection of such allegations – whether open to appellant to contend that registered trustee should have been removed from office pursuant to s 179 of the Act on account of reasonable apprehension of bias – whether open to appellant to advance such contention on appeal – whether such contention advanced below – whether appellant should be granted leave to advance such contention on appeal – possibility that other evidence might have been called by registered trustee – other relevant considerations – interests of justice. Held: Leave refused. BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – where appellant alleged registered trustee guilty of misconduct on multiple grounds – where primary judge rejected such allegations – where registered trustee offered to resign after appellant commenced proceeding seeking order for removal – where appellant also sought order denying registered trustee indemnity – where primary judge rejected allegations of misconduct – where primary judge accepted registered trustee's resignation – whether registered trustee's offer to resign should have been rejected by primary judge and order for removal made instead – whether primary judge should have made order denying registered trustee indemnity – whether primary judge erred in refusing relief sought by appellant. Held: No material error by the primary judge – appeal dismissed.