A woman made bankrupt in 2022 was unsuccessful in having her bankruptcy annulled under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act on the basis that the sequestration order “ought not to have been made” one reason being that she had been subjected to “coercive control”.
Ms Britten’s claim was that she had been the subject of domestic abuse, and that emails and other communications had been interfered with or not been made by her at all, such that only in 2025 did she become aware that she was bankrupt.
Her bankruptcy trustee did not support her annulment application and Justice Stephen McDonald refused it, in effect not accepting much of her evidence.
Abuse and coercive control
The Judge said that her position was that
“the use of her email by another person was part of a course of abuse and coercive control to which she was subjected in 2022. The affidavit evidence filed by Ms Britten contains various descriptions of kinds of behaviour that could amount to coercive control or financial or other forms of abuse. Ms Britten’s evidence does not identify specific incidents in detail. I am, however, conscious of the difficulties that a person in Ms Britten’s position might experience in connection with providing more detailed evidence of these events. Ms Britten provided no entirely independent evidence for these claims, but did adduce evidence of documents which demonstrate that she herself has made allegations of this kind over time, including in family law proceedings and reports to police and other government agencies”: [91].
But he did not find it necessary to make any finding as to abuse or coercive control.
“In circumstances where the person against whom the allegations are made is not before the Court and has not been heard in relation to any of them, it is preferable not to make any such findings. Rather, for the purposes of the present proceeding, I am prepared to assume, in Ms Britten’s favour, that her general evidence about those matters having occurred is or may be true. In particular, I am prepared to assume that Ms Britten’s former partner may have been capable of gaining access to some of her personal accounts”.
As “an abstract possibility”, her email accounts could have been accessed or manipulated by her former partner. But it is not sufficient for her merely to identify that possibility.
“She must satisfy the Court that the Sequestration Order “ought not to have been made”. Relevantly, it is for Ms Britten to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that she was unaware of the hearing on 13 July 2022 at which the Sequestration Order was made”.
Treasury inquiry
Coercive control has been raised as a law reform issue in tax and corporate law, more so in the context of small companies where a domestic or marital partner assumes the role of director, under coercion, or by misleading requests to assume that role. Treasury consulted on that issue in 2025. Combatting financial abuse perpetrated through coerced directorships – Consult hub There has been no outcome on that issue as yet.
Bankruptcy is raised as an issue by Treasury but only in that coercive control can lead to a partner assuming liabilities that may lead to their bankruptcy.
The decision in Britten is not a good or relevant example of how any such law would operate, and her claims of email and signature interference were readily dismissed. These claims came up against bankruptcy law’s need for solid evidence to support an annulment, and beyond that why the discretion should be exercised in her favour.
Successful section 153B annulment applications have involved claims of non-service, and hence not being aware of the hearing; or as to the validity of the judgment debt upon which the petition was based, including if the debt was below the threshold of $10,000. There is a range of more general discretionary factors that can be considered. See Keay’s Insolvency, 11th ed [7.60]-[7.75]; 12th ed pending.
It is conceivable that a situation of coercion could allow a bankruptcy to be annulled.
Identity theft
Hostility in human relations knows no bounds. A past example was that A could complete and file a debtor’s petition and statement of affairs in the name of B, thereby making B bankrupt.
Identity documents are now required, AFSA wanting a debtor to verify their identity
“by showing photo identification, in person, to a witness. The witness must also sign the Debtor’s Petition form and enter their name and address. …”.
The court provides what scrutiny it can in the case of an involuntary bankruptcy?
Britten v Grant, in the matter of Britten [2026] FCA 625 (20 May 2026)
