Australia, Nov. 12 -- The Federal Court of Australia issued the following judgement on Nov. 7:

1 The applicant applies under s 90-20 of Sch 2 to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act) for orders under s 90-15 that the respondent cease to be the trustee of her estate and pay damages associated with alleged breaches of duty.

2 The applicant has also made interlocutory applications for discovery of documents, for an injunction restraining the respondent from acting as the trustee of her estate and for an order for the preservation of property pending determination of her substantive application.

3 The respondent has sought summary judgment against the applicant in respect of the whole of the proceeding.

4 For the reasons that follow, the applicant's interlocutory applications will be refused and her substantive application dismissed.

Factual and procedural background

5 It is necessary to outline some of the lengthy and complex factual and procedural background of the matter before considering the relevant statutory framework, the parties' applications and submissions.

Bankruptcy proceedings

6 On 28 July 2016, the applicant was involved in a motor vehicle collision and was issued with a traffic infringement notice for the offence of failing to give way to a vehicle at an intersection with a stop sign. The applicant contested the infringement notice in the Magistrates Court of Queensland but was convicted and fined. The applicant then instituted a series of appeal proceedings but was unsuccessful: see Storry v Commissioner of Police [2017] QDC 282; Storry v Commissioner of Police [2018] QCA 291; Storry v Commissioner of Police & Anor [2022] HCASL 41.

7 The owner of the other motor vehicle involved in the collision proceeded (by his insurer) with a civil claim against the applicant for the property damage caused to his vehicle. On 4 December 2020, judgment was given against the applicant in the amount of approximately $39,500. The applicant filed an appeal against the decision, which was dismissed on 16 February 2021. The applicant subsequently filed an application for a stay of the orders of 16 February 2021, which was dismissed on 26 October 2021. The applicant also filed an application for a stay of the orders of 4 December 2020, which was dismissed on 7 December 2021: see Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 362 at [8]-[13]; Storry v Weir [2023] QCA 4 at [2]-[3].

8 The applicant did not pay the judgment sum and was subsequently served with a Bankruptcy Notice. On 14 December 2021, a creditor's petition was filed seeking a sequestration order against the applicant's estate: see Weir v Storry [2022] FedCFamC2G 183.

9 On 11 March 2022, the applicant filed an appeal in the District Court (BD589/22) against the decision to dismiss her application for a stay of the orders of 4 December 2020: see Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 362 at [15].

10 On 18 March 2022, a sequestration order was made against the applicant and the respondent became the trustee of her estate: Weir v Storry [2022] FedCFamC2G 183. The applicant again instituted a series of appeal proceedings but was unsuccessful: Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 794; Storry v Weir (No 2) [2022] FCA 1360; Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 1484; Storry v Weir [2023] HCASL 183.

11 On 21 March 2022, the lawyers for the motor vehicle insurer wrote to the respondent, seeking his election to either prosecute or discontinue the appeal proceeding before the District Court (BD589/22). On 23 March 2022, the respondent elected to discontinue the proceeding. On 19 October 2023, the applicant sent two emails to the respondent, requesting that he elect to prosecute the discontinued District Court proceeding.

*Rest of the document and Footnotes can be viewed at: (https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca1274)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.