(02) 9560 3388Providing you with effective legal solutions
Office: Suite 44, The Italian Forum (Free parking)
Click here to send Your Details,
or Click & Download our brochure below.
- Property Law News - Need some help with a new home purchase?
- Contract Law News - Before you enter into a guarantee update your knowledge on how the new Personal Property Securities Act affects your obligations
- Company Law News - A reversal of a prior decision regarding the rights of creditors to pursue directors personally under the Corporations Act s1324(10)
We are on
Insolvency Law News, March/April 2011
Beware of trying to be too smart in trying to offload assets to defeat creditors where there is a risk of bankruptcy.
In Leonilda Marcolongo v Yu Po Chen & Anor [2011] HCA 3 the High Court allowed an appeal to set aside a registered transfer of land by applying s.37A of the Conveyancing Act (NSW). This section provides that where a property is “alienated” or transferred with the intent to defraud creditors then [in most circumstances] that transfer can set aside in favour of the person who has been disadvantaged by the transfer having occurred.
In this case Mrs Marcolongo sued Mr. Lym for damaging her property during Lym’s construction works on a neighbouring property. The litigation continued for some time and Mrs. Marcolongo tried to obtain an order over another property of Lym’s to secure payment of the claim, in the event that she was successful. Lym decided to reduce his exposure to a loss in the litigation, by selling the second property to his friend Mr Chen.
A couple of years later Mrs. Marcologo succeeded in her claim against Lym. She then made a claim against Lym and Chen that the transfer of the second property was “voidable” based on s.37A . The Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court examined Lym’s motives in transferring the property . The High Court held that to “defraud” includes the hindering or delaying of creditors in exercising their rights to a remedy, the majority of judges held that to defraud does not necessarily require an element of dishonesty or the sole intent to defraud, and in this case the level of Lym’s intent to defraud Mrs. Marcolongo was enough to satisfy the requirements of s.37A and Mr. Chen was not a purchaser of the second property in good faith who at the time of the transfer did not have the notice of any intent by Lym to defraud Mrs. Marcolongo.
