Australia, May 27 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on April 28:

1. The plaintiff, Scott Pascoe, is the trustee of two bankrupt estates - those of Peter Voukidis (now deceased) and Kathy Voukidis. The defendant, Christos Voukidis, is the son of Peter and Kathy Voukidis.

2. The defendant filed a statement of claim against the plaintiff in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court of New South Wales on 20 December 2024. The defendant alleges that, in effect, the plaintiff has wrongfully deprived him of a motor vehicle and safe, which the defendant says are both his.

3. In his summons filed in this Court on 19 March 2025, the plaintiff contends that the Local Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the proceedings pursuant to s 27(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), and seeks orders under the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) ('the Cross-Vesting Act') such that the proceedings be removed to this Court and, then, further removed and transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). The plaintiff also seeks an order that the defendant pay his costs of and incidental to this application, on an indemnity basis.

4. It is helpful to briefly outline the allegations against the plaintiff, as derived from the statement of claim.

Background

5. Kathy Voukidis became bankrupt in July 2021 and a trustee was appointed by the Official Receiver to manage her estate. That trustee was replaced with the plaintiff by orders made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) on 22 May 2022.

6. Kathy Voukidis owned a home at Burwood ('the property') which was sold at auction on 7 December 2024. The defendant ordinarily possessed the property before its sale. Two items were, relevantly, kept at the property. The first was a safe. The second was a 2006 S40 Volvo Sedan ('the vehicle'). The defendant alleges that he is, and was at all times, the owner of the safe and the vehicle.

7. Between 23 October 2024 and 31 October 2024, the defendant demanded that the plaintiff allow him to access, remove and open the safe. The defendant was unsuccessful.

8. Between 24 October 2024 and 28 October 2024, the defendant was also advised that the vehicle had been removed from the property and placed into storage with the plaintiff's agent. The defendant reported the vehicle to police as stolen on 5 November 2024.

9. The defendant alleges that the plaintiff has deprived him of possession of the vehicle and safe and that he is entitled to them. He does so on two grounds. First, he argues that, as the owner of the vehicle and safe, that property was not vested in the plaintiff pursuant to s 58 of the Bankruptcy Act. Alternatively, in relation to the vehicle, he argues that it was not divisible property within the meaning of s 116(2)(ca) of the Bankruptcy Act. The defendant seeks orders that the vehicle and safe be delivered to him, and damages for loss, conversion and detention if that is not possible.

10. The application before this Court is not concerned with those issues. The issue is instead whether the proceeding should be removed to and heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1967a75743e3244ce6b8d9c1)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.