Event and Time
Event Description
- The case involves an application by the trustee in bankruptcy (the Applicant) for declaratory relief regarding payments made by Mr. Do (the First Respondent) to his superannuation fund, to Ms. Trinh (the Third Respondent), and in relation to the ownership of a property at Gozzard Street, Gungahlin.
- The payments are alleged to be contrary to sections 128B and 128C of the Bankruptcy Act 1996 (Cth), with the primary contention being that they were made with the main purpose of defeating creditors.
Application and Claims
- Three main claims are presented by the Trustees:
1. Payments made by Mr. Do into the Andrew Superannuation Fund (ASF). 2. Payments made to Ms. Trinh. 3. Ownership of the Gozzard Street property, with assertions that Mr. Do’s transactions amount to fraud against creditors.
Judicial Decisions
- The court found conflicting inferences regarding the ownership of the Gozzard Street property and thus dismissed that part of the claim.
- However, the court ruled that the Trustees did establish their claims regarding the payments made by Mr. Do into the ASF and the payments to Ms. Trinh, affirming the need for Mr. Do to cover the costs of the Applicant for all other aspects of the claim.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Claimants (Trustees) contend:
- Payments made to ASF are void as they were intended to hide assets from creditors. - Payments to Ms. Trinh were undervalued or intended to defeat creditors. - Ownership of the Gozzard Street property is a disposition made with fraudulent intent.
- Defendants (Mr. Do and Do Construction) argue:
- All payments to ASF were legitimate and not void transactions. - Denial of fraudulent intent regarding the payments to Ms. Trinh and ownership of the real estate. - The Trustees have not met the burden of proof to establish claims.