featured-image-posts-800w
No Comments

Paying the Piper: When will the Federal Court turn to receivership to enforce unsecured judgment debts?

By Jacob Reardon and Keely Wunsch, an Associate and Law Clerk in our Insolvency, Restructuring and Debt Recovery Group.

This article was published to Mondaq on 20 February 2026, accessible via the link here 

In Scott (Trustee), in the matter of Stolyar (Bankrupt) v Stolyar (No 5) [2024] FCA 37 (“Stolyar 5”), the applicant trustee in bankruptcy successfully obtained orders in the Federal Court of Australia to appoint himself as receiver over a property located at Longworth Avenue, Point Piper (“Longworth Avenue”) held in the name of the first respondent, Ms Stolyar. [...]  READ MORE →

payment-red-enter-key-800w
No Comments

Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd (No 8): The sequestration order was set aside but the costs story did not end there

By Harold Peng, a Solicitor of Matthews Folbigg, in our Insolvency, Restructuring and Debt Recovery Group.

Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd (No 8) [2025] FCA 1525 (3 December 2025)

In October 2025, we published a case note on Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd (No 7) [2025] FCA 1125 (“Ogbonna 7”), where the Federal Court allowed Mr Ogbonna’s appeal and found that the sequestration order made against him should not have been made.

The orders made in Ogbonna 7 left a practical question hanging:

If the bankruptcy order is set aside, what happens next, and who pays the legal costs that have built up over years of litigation? [...]  READ MORE →

house model held by man and woman
No Comments

NSW Housing Pattern Book: fast-track pathway now live for low-rise

What’s new

On 16 July 2025, the NSW Government launched the Housing Pattern Book (Pattern Book) and a new Pattern Book Development Code in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP 2008). The initiative provides a ten-day approval pathway for eligible sites, using selected residential housing designs.

Designs available now

The Pattern Book provides eight (8) selected designs for:

  • semi-detached or dual occupancy homes
  • terraces
  • manor homes
  • row homes
    (mid-rise apartment buildings up to 6 storeys will be in a separate pattern book due late 2025)

(Pattern Book Designs)

Each Pattern Book Design normally costs $1,000, but is subsidised to $1 during the six-month launch period of the Pattern Book, currently listed as subsidised until 31 January 2026 on the official shop. [...]  READ MORE →

opt-out-opt-in-signs-800w
No Comments

Integrated development – “opt-in” or a matter of fact?

Key points

  • In a recent Land and Environment Court (LEC) decision, the LEC treated a development application (DA) as integrated development even though the applicant did not elect it to be processed as such.
  • For years, practitioners have treated the integrated development scheme in Div 4.8 of Pt 4 of the EP&A Act as a device that allows applicants to invoke to coordinate approvals. On that view, an applicant might “opt in” or proceed as a standard DA.
  • In Artmade Architectural Pty Ltd v Central Coast Council [2025] NSWLEC 1249 (Artmade), the Court re-centred the analysis on the text of s 4.46: development is “integrated” if, in order to carry it out, the proponent requires both development consent and a listed approval. On that basis, the DA was integrated development, irrespective of the applicant’s election on the DA form submitted to Council.
  • The Court held the classification turns on the criteria in ss 1.4 and 4.46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EP&A Act), not on whether the election was made on the DA form.
  • The LEC held that because the work required an aquifer interference approval under s 91 of the Water Management Act 2000, the DA attracted the 60-day deemed-refusal period for integrated development (rather than 40 days). As such the appeal lodged at day 41 was premature and jurisdiction had not yet arisen.
  • Although a judge’s decision in Maule v Liporoni [2002] NSWLEC 25 (Maule) has long been understood as supporting an “opt-in” approach, the Commissioner in Artmade did not follow that view. This creates complexity until a binding appellate clarification occurs.

Artmade in brief

Facts: The DA was for a childcare centre including a basement. The geotechnical report indicated that excavation for the basement was likely to intercept groundwater, so dewatering would be required during excavation and construction of the basement. Because that dewatering would interfere with an aquifer, the works required an aquifer interference approval under the Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act). The applicant did not nominate the DA as integrated development and, instead, filed a Class 1 appeal on day 41 after lodgement, relying on the 40-day deemed-refusal period that applies to standard DAs. [...]  READ MORE →

Dont forget written on notepad
No Comments

Mandatory Planning Considerations: Don’t forget the DCP!

In the recent Land and Environment Court (LEC) decision of Ross v Randwick City Council [2025] NSWLEC 89, Justice Pritchard confirmed that a development control plan (DCP) is a mandatory consideration when determining modification applications under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EP&A Act).

The Council’s approval was held invalid, because the assessment failed to engage with the applicable DCP.

Background

On 28 July 2022, ADS Building Designers (ADS) obtained development consent from Randwick City Council (Council) for demolition works and construction of a new two-storey duplex. [...]  READ MORE →

noise-pollution-sign-800w
No Comments

Noise Prevention Notices – evidentiary requirements

A recent decision of the Land and Environment Court in Doon v Snowy Valleys Council [2025] NSWLEC 1514, confirms that the ‘reasonable suspicion’ required to issue a Prevention Notice under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1993 (POEO Act) is not arbitrary and must be based on objective evidence.

Background

These proceedings related to an appeal against a Noise Prevention Notice issued by Snowy Valleys Council (Council) to Mr Doon (Appellant) under s 96 of the POEO Act.

Council received 15 written complaints from three neighbours about noise emanating from the Appellant’s property. The complaints related to noise from:- vehicles; undertaking of vehicle repairs; use of power tools, use of ride-on lawnmower, use of dirt bikes and amplified noise. The Appellant’s property is approximately 1.5ha, located within a low density residential zone and adjoins the Tumut golf course on one side. [...]  READ MORE →

seek-facts-800w
No Comments

Trustee Seeking Judicial Advice Under a Family Provision Claim – Estate of Wilson [2025] NSWSC 1056

In the recent decision of Estate of Wilson [2025] NSWSC 1056, the Supreme Court of NSW considered whether it should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to provide judicial advice to an independent administrator, in the context of a family provision claim. This case clarifies the Court’s approach to advising administrators in circumstances where all beneficiaries are not in agreement with the proposed settlement of estate claims.

Factual Background

In November 2020, Mr Edward Ernest Wilson died at age 86, leaving an estate estimated to be valued at $12.28 million. [...]  READ MORE →

magnify-document-800w
No Comments

Regulating the Regulator – Reviewing decisions of the Official Receiver under s139ZQ

By Amelia Fearnside and Parnia Firouzabadi, Law Clerks of Matthews Folbigg, in our Insolvency, Restructuring and Debt Recovery Group.

In a decision which appears to be the first of its kind, a bankruptcy trustee has taken the bankruptcy regulator to Court to overturn its refusal to issue a statutory notice. In Cooper v Official Receiver [2025] FCA 1155, the Federal Court made consent orders in the nature of certiorari, which quashed the decision of the Official Receiver who had refused to issue a notice sought by a trustee under s 139ZQ of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”). [...]  READ MORE →

depositphotos_665204070_s-cut-in-line-800w
No Comments

Queue Jumping! – Priority of Creditors during Liquidation

By Lara Wehbe a Law Clerk of Matthews Folbigg, in our Insolvency, Restructuring and Debt Recovery Group.

In an insolvent winding up, by definition there are not enough assets to go around. Priority of payment is paramount, however ordinary unsecured creditors are, ordinarily, last in the queue. The case of Ford Kinter & Associates Pty Ltd v Reliance Franchise Partners Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] FCA 139 is a great example of when the Court will allow ordinary unsecured creditors to jump the creditor queue and gain priority, where they have taken risks to fund litigation proceedings with the aim of recovering assets for the benefit of creditors. This prioritisation showcases the flexibility and broad application of section 564 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“the Corporations Act”) as it supports creditors that dive headfirst into these risks. [...]  READ MORE →

tablet-screen-payable-800w
No Comments

Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd (No 7): Understanding the Importance of “Presently Payable” in Bankruptcy Proceedings

By Harold Peng, a Solicitor, Parnia Firouzabadi, Lara Wehbe and Amelia Fearnside, Law Clerks of Matthews Folbigg, in our Insolvency, Restructuring and Debt Recovery Group.

Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd (No 7) [2025] FCA 1125 (12 September 2025)

Just because you are vexatious, doesn’t mean you don’t (always) have an arguable case…

In this decision the Federal Court has allowed an appeal by a vexatious litigant against a 2022 sequestration order made against him because the petition debt was not “presently payable” at the relevant time. WA enforcement law imposed real pre-conditions on enforcing an older judgment, and those pre-conditions had not been met. The Court stood over the implications of its judgment including considerations affecting the trustee in bankruptcy who had been appointed just under 3 years. [...]  READ MORE →

final-demand-latter-mail-1090w
No Comments

Received a Statutory Demand? – Don’t Panic (But Act Promptly): A General Guide to Creditors Statutory Demands

By Parnia Firouzabadi and Lara Wehbe Law Clerks of Matthews Folbigg, in our Insolvency, Restructuring and Debt Recovery Group

Receiving a statutory demand from a creditor claiming that your company owes money can be quite an overwhelming experience, particularly if you are unfamiliar with the process of responding to the demand and the legal implications of failing to do so.

On the other hand, it can be tempting (but extremely unwise) to treat a statutory demand like any other demand from a creditor. From the moment your company receives a statutory demand the clock is ticking, as such it is important that you act in a timely manner to either respond to, or comply with, the demand. In the event that your company fails to respond or comply with the statutory demand within the strict timeframe, it is presumed to be insolvent which may in turn lead to winding up proceedings. [...]  READ MORE →

depositphotos-trust-feed-concept-800w
No Comments

Trust issues? – The Court’s got your back.

By Rebecca Georges, a Law Clerk of Matthews Folbigg, in our Insolvency, Restructuring and Debt Recovery Group

Although there are adverse problems that can arise when a trust deed is missing, destroyed, or misplaced, trust us when we say all is not lost!

In fact, losing an original trust deed is not an uncommon occurrence brought before the Courts. In Gainer (considered below) the court held that “applications for judicial advice by trustees in relation to lost trust deeds are not unusual” (per Kunc J at [16]) [...]  READ MORE →