In a creditor’s petition for a sequestration order, a consent to act of a private registered trustee had been signed but it had not been filed with the Official Receiver as required – see s 156A(1) Bankruptcy Act.
On 19 February 2026, a sequestration order was made and, with no consent to act on file, the Official Trustee automatically became trustee of the bankrupt estate pursuant to s 160. It is not explained why or how the oversight was not identified at the hearing.
At some expense, on 24 February, the Court remedied the “filing oversight” pursuant to s 90‑15(1) of the IPSB. There were said to be concerns that required the urgent attention of a trustee. Counsel appeared for the creditor. The trusteeship of a bankruptcy is an important issue to resolve.
The Judge was told that
“the costs of this application approached $20,000”.
Justice Thawley instead ordered that $5,000 should be paid out of the estate to the creditor with priority under s 109(1)(a) Bankruptcy Act – “these kinds of errors can occur in cases of this kind …”.
Chu v Lin, in the matter of Lin [2026] FCA 152 (24 February 2026)
5 Responses
Can any proceeding in a superior court (if we are still allowed to use that term after Vasta?) be conducted for less than $20k?
Yes, if we replace judges with AI.
The relevant application was that of fixing the mistake and not the entire proceeding. In that sense $20k would appear high where there was a mistake on part of petitioning creditor and advusers
“would appear high”!? it is high!
Too right!