Bankruptcy Proceeding: Can a Trustee Obtain Vacant Possession and Orders for Sale of a Bankrupt’s Property When Respondents Fail to Cooperate?

Introduction
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Woodgate (Trustee) v Rumble, in the matter of Rumble (Bankrupt) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1581, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information:

Court of Hearing: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
Presiding Judge: Judge Given
Cause of Action: Application for vacant possession and orders for sale of property of bankrupt estate
Judgment Date: 8 September 2025
Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Keyword 3: Vacant Possession
Keyword 4: Trustee in Bankruptcy
Keyword 5: Realisation of Assets
Keyword 6: Non-Cooperation

Background:

The applicant, Mr Giles Geoffrey Woodgate, acting as the Trustee of the bankrupt estates of the first and second respondents, Mr Robert George Rumble and Ms Lee Rumble, sought orders for vacant possession and sale of a property located at 69 South Street, Quirindi, New South Wales 2343 (the Property). This application arose due to the bankrupts’ ongoing occupation and storage of various items on the Property, hindering the Trustee’s statutory duty to realise assets for the benefit of creditors. The proceedings also involved the third respondent, Mr Leslie George Lobsey, who occupied a part of the Property, and the fourth respondent, Mr Craig Rumble, son of the bankrupts, who had various chattels stored on the Property. The second respondent, Ms Lee Rumble, was reported deceased during the proceedings.

Core Disputes and Claims:

The central dispute revolved around the Trustee’s inability to gain vacant possession of the Property, which was a significant asset of the bankrupt estate. The Trustee sought orders compelling the respondents to vacate the Property, remove their belongings and animals, and authorising the Trustee to take all necessary steps for the sale of the Property, including engaging agents and applying the proceeds to cover costs and liabilities. The respondents, particularly the first respondent, had failed to cooperate with the Trustee’s requests for vacant possession.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The intricate web of events leading to this litigation began with Mr Robert Rumble’s purchase of the Property on 8 January 1997. Over two decades later, on 23 August 2019, a sequestration order was made against both Mr Robert Rumble and Ms Lee Rumble, leading to Mr Giles Geoffrey Woodgate’s appointment as the Trustee of their bankrupt estates. This appointment imposed a statutory duty on the Trustee to realise the bankrupts’ assets for the benefit of their creditors.

The financial difficulties of the bankrupts were significant, with known liabilities totalling approximately AUD $450,000 against a Property valued at AUD $350,000 to AUD $375,000. Key creditors included the Australian Taxation Office and the Liverpool Plains Shire Council. Despite being the registered proprietor, Mr Robert Rumble, along with Ms Lee Rumble, asserted that the Property was held in trust for their five children – a claim for which no supporting documentation could be found.

The conflict escalated as the Trustee initiated steps to fulfil his duties. In August 2023, the Trustee issued a Notice to Vacate the Property to both Mr Robert Rumble and Ms Lee Rumble. However, vacant possession was not delivered. The situation was further complicated by the occupation of the third respondent, Mr Leslie George Lobsey, in a caravan on Lot 9 of the Property, and the extensive storage of approximately fifty motor vehicles and various parts, many belonging to the fourth respondent, Mr Craig Rumble, scattered across and outside the Property’s boundaries. The Property itself was noted to be in a state of disrepair. The lack of cooperation from the bankrupts, coupled with the complex occupancy and chattel issues, made the Trustee’s statutory obligations unattainable without judicial intervention, setting the stage for the current application before the Court.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

The applicant, Mr Woodgate (Trustee), relied on several affidavits to establish the background, the bankrupts’ affairs, attempts to gain vacant possession, and the non-cooperation of the respondents.

• Affidavit of Giles Geoffrey Woodgate (18 June 2025): This affidavit, referred to as the Woodgate Affidavit, detailed the acquisition of the Property by Mr Robert Rumble, the applicant’s appointment as Trustee on 23 August 2019, and the ongoing issues preventing the realisation of the Property as a bankrupt asset. It included a current title search, a transfer document for the Property, correspondence from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia regarding the mortgage balance, and a satellite image from 2019 depicting numerous vehicles and structures on the Property. The affidavit also outlined the bankrupts’ financial affairs, including their significant unsecured debts and claims regarding a family trust for their children, for which no documentation existed.
• Affidavits of Service by Paul Michael Sternbeck (31 July 2025 and 5 September 2025): These affidavits attested to the proper service of the originating application and subsequent court orders on the first, third, and fourth respondents. The later affidavit specifically addressed service concerning the second respondent, Ms Lee Rumble, whose death was later confirmed.
• Affidavits of Ms Lucy Tindal (20 August, 22 August, 2 September, and 5 September 2025): These affidavits provided updated information on the proceedings, including the failed settlement discussions (20 August 2025 affidavit), the estimated value of the Property (AUD $350,000 to AUD $375,000 as of 22 August 2025, in the August Tindal Affidavit), and the known liabilities of the bankrupt estate (approximately AUD $450,000). The September Tindal Affidavit included a coronial certificate confirming the death of the second respondent, Ms Lee Rumble, and related funeral invoices. It also included Annexure D, a consent order signed by the third respondent, indicating his willingness to vacate the Property.
• Arguments: The Trustee argued that he was under a statutory duty to realise the assets of the bankrupt estate, which was being frustrated by the respondents’ failure to deliver vacant possession. He submitted that the estimated value of the Property exceeded its specific liabilities, making its sale crucial for the creditors. The Trustee highlighted the non-cooperation of the first respondent and the willingness of the third respondent to vacate.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

• There was no formal appearance by or on behalf of any of the respondents at the final hearing.
• The first respondent, Mr Robert Rumble, had appeared at the first court date (6 August 2025) but subsequently filed no documentation or formal defence.
• The third respondent, Mr Leslie George Lobsey, provided a signed consent order (Annexure D to the August Tindal Affidavit) indicating his willingness to vacate the Property, acknowledging his occupation of part of the Property.

Core Dispute Points:

1. Vacant Possession: The primary dispute was the physical occupation of the Property by the first and third respondents, and the storage of chattels by the fourth respondent, preventing the Trustee from exercising control and proceeding with the sale.
2. Trust Claim: The bankrupts’ informal claim that the Property was held in trust for their children, for which no documentary evidence existed, posed a potential, albeit unsubstantiated, challenge to the Trustee’s unfettered right to the Property.
3. Non-Cooperation: The ongoing failure of the first respondent to cooperate with the Trustee’s statutory obligations, despite initial attendance, was a critical factor.
4. Deceased Party: The death of the second respondent, Ms Lee Rumble, required procedural acknowledgment and confirmation, impacting the orders sought against her estate.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavits are crucial legal documents where parties present their factual narratives under oath, meticulously integrating evidence to bolster their claims. In this case, the applicant’s affidavits systematically constructed a narrative of statutory duty, factual impediments, and the respondents’ non-cooperation, forming a persuasive legal statement for the Court.

The Woodgate Affidavit served as the foundational document, setting out the Trustee’s appointment, the existence of the Property, and the financial state of the bankrupts. It explicitly detailed the Property’s legal description, its ownership history, and its current encumbrances, such as the mortgage to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The inclusion of the satellite image depicting numerous vehicles on the Property underscored the scale of the logistical challenge facing the Trustee. The strategic intent here was to paint a clear picture of the Trustee’s legal right to the Property and the physical obstructions preventing its realisation.

The August Tindal Affidavit further developed this narrative by providing up-to-date valuations of the Property and outlining the aggregate liabilities of the bankrupt estate, demonstrating a clear deficit that necessitated the sale of the Property. It also clarified the ambiguous claims by the bankrupts that the Property was held in trust for their children, asserting the absence of any supporting documentation. The strategic intent was to solidify the financial necessity of the sale and refute any equitable claims that might impede the Trustee’s actions.

The September Sternbeck Affidavit and the September Tindal Affidavit addressed crucial procedural matters, namely the service of documents on all respondents and the formal confirmation of the second respondent’s death. The strategic intent behind these affidavits was to ensure the Court was satisfied that all procedural fairness requirements were met, particularly the notification of the hearing to all interested parties, and to clarify the status of a deceased respondent. The production of the coronial certificate and funeral invoices in the September Tindal Affidavit, despite the absence of a formal death certificate, was a strategic move to provide the Court with sufficient evidence to infer the second respondent’s death and proceed accordingly.

A notable point was the contrast between the first respondent’s initial appearance and subsequent non-filing of any documents. This strategic non-engagement on the part of the first respondent, while not explicitly stated in an affidavit from his side, was a critical fact presented to the Court by the applicant. This silence, in the face of detailed factual and legal assertions by the Trustee, allowed the Court to proceed on the unchallenged evidence presented by the applicant.

The procedural directions issued by the Judge, which included specific deadlines for filing affidavits and submissions, were strategically intended to create a clear evidentiary record and compel engagement from the respondents. When the respondents failed to meet these deadlines or appear, the Court was enabled to make determinations based on the uncontroverted evidence presented by the applicant, streamlining the litigation process towards a resolution in favour of the Trustee’s statutory duties.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final hearing, the Court issued specific procedural orders and directions to manage the progression of the case and ensure due process, particularly given the initial engagement and subsequent non-cooperation from the respondents.

On 6 August 2025, at the first court date, the Court adjourned the proceedings to 20 August 2025. This adjournment was granted to allow for ongoing discussions for the resolution of the proceedings, reflecting the Court’s initial expectation of a potential settlement between the parties.

Following the non-appearance of any respondents on 20 August 2025, and the communication that settlement discussions had failed, the Court made further orders to set the matter down for a substantive hearing. These orders included:

1. Adjournment for further hearing: The proceedings were adjourned for a further hearing before Judge Given at 10:15 am on 8 September 2025.
2. Applicant’s further evidence and submissions: The applicant was required to file and serve any additional affidavit evidence and written submissions by 4:00 pm on 1 September 2025.
3. Respondents’ evidence and submissions: The respondents were required to file and serve any evidence and written submissions by 4:00 pm on 5 September 2025.
4. Service of orders: The applicant was mandated to serve a sealed copy of these orders on the respondents by 4:00 pm on 27 August 2025.
5. Liberty to apply: Liberty to apply was granted on one day’s notice, allowing parties to approach the Court for urgent directions if necessary.

These orders were designed to facilitate a structured presentation of evidence and arguments, ensuring all parties had the opportunity to be heard, and to address the emerging complexity concerning the second respondent’s alleged death.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing on 8 September 2025 unfolded in the absence of the respondents, a pivotal factor that shaped the Court’s process. The Court noted the initial appearance of the first respondent on 6 August 2025, which suggested engagement, but contrasted this with the subsequent failure of any respondent to file documents or appear for the scheduled hearings. This consistent non-appearance, despite proper service, permitted the Court to proceed in their absence pursuant to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

The applicant’s solicitor meticulously presented the consolidated evidentiary package, relying heavily on the affidavits previously filed. The live presentation of the evidence allowed the Court to confirm the procedural diligence undertaken by the Trustee, particularly regarding the attempts to facilitate vacant possession and to formally address the status of the second respondent, Ms Lee Rumble, whose death was confirmed via the coronial certificate annexed to the September Tindal Affidavit. The Court engaged in a detailed review of this evidence, confirming its sufficiency to proceed with the application uncontested.

A crucial aspect of the judicial reasoning centred on the Trustee’s statutory duties and the impediments to their fulfilment. The evidence clearly demonstrated the financial insolvency of the bankrupt estate, with liabilities significantly outweighing assets, primarily the Property. The presence of numerous vehicles and non-permanent structures, as illustrated by the satellite image, vividly portrayed the practical obstacles to selling the Property. The Court considered the consent of the third respondent to vacate, noting its indicative value even if the precise terms were not immediately adopted. This showed a partial willingness to cooperate, which, while not a full resolution, provided some clarity.

The Judge articulated the principle that the Court’s powers under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), buttressed by the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and state laws like the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), are sufficiently broad to grant the orders sought. His Honour explicitly referred to established precedents to affirm this power.

“Thus, the section has been held to provide sufficient power to make orders against a bankrupt for the vacation of property, issuing a warrant of possession and for the sale of a property in circumstances where the bankrupt is not complying with his or her obligations under the Act: see, for example, Vince (Trustee), Re Sopikiotis (Bankrupt) v Sopikiotis (No 2) [2012] FCA 1298 at [4] per Bromberg J; Pattison v McKinnon [2008] FCA 1624 at [2] per Jessup J; Official Receiver v Fall (2008) 5 ABC(NS) 772 at [10]–[12] (Lucev FM (as his Honour then was)). It also expressly extends to ancillary relief such as injunctions and other equitable remedies to prevent the scheme of the Act from (2014) 311 ALR 428 at 450 being defeated. Such ancillary orders are, as the Full Court observed in Talacko at [17], ‘neither novel or unusual’: see also Storey at CLR 557; ALR 134 per Gibbs CJ.”

This quotation from Coshott v Prentice (2014) 221 FCR 450 at [94], cited by the Court, was determinative as it unequivocally established the legal basis for making orders for vacant possession, issuing warrants, and ordering the sale of property when a bankrupt is not complying with their statutory obligations. It affirmed the broad remedial powers of bankruptcy courts, including equitable remedies, to ensure the effective administration of bankrupt estates. This directly supported the Trustee’s application.

The Judge ultimately concluded that the Trustee’s application was appropriate and necessary for the proper administration of the bankrupt estate, as there was no other viable asset to address the outstanding liabilities. The failure of the respondents to engage or present counter-evidence meant the Trustee’s submissions and evidence stood unchallenged, forming the factual and legal basis for the Court’s final orders.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court made the following orders, effective from 8 September 2025:

1. Vacant Possession: Pursuant to ss 30, 77(1)(e) and 77(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), the respondents must deliver vacant possession of the property known as 69 South Street, Quirindi, NSW 2343 (the Property) on or by 21 October 2025.
   • (a) The respondents must remove all goods, garbage, chattels, vehicles and/or belongings from the Property that have not vested in the applicant.
   • (b) The respondents must remove all animals from the Property.
2. Writ of Possession: A writ of possession in favour of the applicant is to issue forthwith in respect of the Property. This writ will lie in the Court Registry until the applicant files an affidavit (not before forty-three (43) days from the date of the order) stating that the first respondent has not given vacant possession. Upon receipt of such an affidavit, the Registry shall forthwith release the writ of possession to the applicant for its execution.
3. Affidavit for Writ: For the purposes of order 1(b) above, the affidavit may be made by the solicitor for the applicant.
4. Powers of Applicant: Pursuant to s 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), the applicant may:
   • (a) Engage agents (real estate agents, valuers, cleaners, tradespeople, accountants, solicitors, conveyancers, and auctioneers) to assist in the preparation for sale and selling of the Property.
   • (b) Take steps to subdivide the Property.
   • (c) Sell the Property by private treaty, auction or tender, and have sole conduct of the sale.
   • (d) If sold by auction, decide whether to set a reserve price and its quantum.
   • (e) Deal with abandoned goods, chattels and vehicles at the Property at his sole discretion.
5. Application of Proceeds of Sale: The applicant may apply the proceeds of sale as follows:
   • (a) Paying costs, commissions, duties, taxes, rates and other expenses of the sale and transfer of the Property.
   • (b) Paying the cost of these proceedings.
   • (c) Discharging any mortgage or charge over the Property (in order of priority) registered prior to the applicant’s appointment as trustee.
   • (d) Paying the applicant’s costs at the applicant’s firm’s hourly rates and disbursements (including any legal fees) incurred in selling the Property.
   • (e) The balance to be paid to the applicant in his capacity as trustee of the first respondent’s bankrupt’s estate.
6. Applicant’s Costs Priority: The applicant’s costs and disbursements of, and incidental to, this proceeding are to be paid in priority, pursuant to s 109 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), from the Property of the bankrupt estate of the first respondent.
7. Liberty to Apply: Liberty to apply on five days’ notice.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis:

This case underscores the broad, yet necessary, powers of a trustee in bankruptcy to administer a bankrupt’s estate effectively, especially when faced with non-cooperation from the bankrupt and other occupiers. The particular circumstance of multiple respondents (including a deceased party, a consenting occupier, and a family member with chattels) highlights the complexity trustees often navigate. The Court’s reliance on section 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to import state laws, like the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), into federal bankruptcy proceedings, reinforces the flexibility of federal jurisdiction in property matters. The explicit authorisation for the Trustee to manage and sell the property, including engaging agents and even subdividing the land, is a practical and somewhat uncommon level of detail in a court order, reflecting a comprehensive approach to asset realisation. This comprehensive relief, granted in the absence of the respondents, demonstrates the Court’s willingness to enforce a trustee’s duties robustly where non-compliance is evident.

Judgment Points:

1. Evidentiary Weight of Non-Appearance: The consistent failure of the respondents to appear or file documents, despite proper service, was a critical factor. It effectively left the applicant’s evidence unchallenged, allowing the Court to draw inferences and accept the Trustee’s narrative without contradiction.
2. Confirmation of Deceased Party: The acceptance of a coronial certificate and funeral invoices as sufficient proof of death, in lieu of a formal death certificate, demonstrates judicial pragmatism in dealing with real-world administrative delays affecting legal processes.
3. Consent of Occupier: The Court took note of the third respondent’s consent to vacate, indicating that such willingness, even outside formal litigation processes, is a relevant factor that can influence the scope or necessity of coercive orders.
4. Scope of Trustee’s Powers: The detailed orders regarding the sale process (e.g., ability to subdivide, engage various professionals, set reserve prices) underscore the extensive powers the Court will grant a trustee to overcome practical impediments to asset realisation.

Legal Basis:

The Court’s jurisdiction and power to make the orders derive primarily from:

• Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth):
  • Section 30(1)(a) and (b): Grants the Court full power to decide all questions of law or fact in bankruptcy matters and to make necessary orders to carry out or give effect to the Act. This is the foundational power for addressing the entire application.
  • Section 77(1)(e) and (g): Imposes duties on a bankrupt to execute instruments and do all acts for property realisation as required by the Act, the trustee, or the Court, and to aid in the administration of their estate. The orders compelling vacant possession and cooperation directly enforce these statutory duties.
  • Section 58(1): States that property of the bankrupt vests in the trustee. This provides the fundamental right of the Trustee to possess and sell the Property.
  • Section 109: Establishes the priority of payments from the bankrupt estate, relevant for the Trustee’s costs and disbursements.
• Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) Section 79: This section incorporates state or territory laws, including those relating to procedure and evidence, into federal jurisdiction. This allowed the Court to reference state property laws.
• Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) Rules 22.04 and 24.04: These rules govern the Court’s ability to proceed in the absence of a party and to remedy minor errors in orders, ensuring procedural integrity.
• Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW): While not explicitly cited by section for the orders, this state Act provides the underlying legal framework for property subdivision, sale, and dealing with land within New South Wales, applied through the Judiciary Act.

Evidence Chain:

The chain of evidence demonstrated:

1. Ownership and Bankruptcy: Title documents confirmed Mr Robert Rumble’s ownership of the Property. The sequestration orders established the applicant’s legal status as Trustee, vesting the Property in him.
2. Impediments to Realisation: The Woodgate Affidavit and annexed satellite image clearly showed the occupation of the Property by multiple parties, significant chattels, and its general state, proving practical impediments to its sale.
3. Financial Necessity: The August Tindal Affidavit presented the Property’s valuation against the substantial liabilities of the bankrupt estate, establishing the necessity of its sale to meet creditor demands.
4. Attempts at Resolution: Correspondence between the Trustee and respondents demonstrated repeated, unsuccessful attempts to secure voluntary vacant possession and cooperation.
5. Procedural Compliance: Affidavits of Service confirmed that all respondents were properly notified of the proceedings and court dates, ensuring procedural fairness.
6. Confirmed Death: The coronial certificate provided sufficient evidence for the Court to accept the death of the second respondent, allowing the proceedings to continue appropriately.

Judicial Original Quotation:

In affirming the Court’s authority to grant such comprehensive relief, Judge Given directly adopted the reasoning from a comparable authority:

“Thus, the section has been held to provide sufficient power to make orders against a bankrupt for the vacation of property, issuing a warrant of possession and for the sale of a property in circumstances where the bankrupt is not complying with his or her obligations under the Act: see, for example, Vince (Trustee), Re Sopikiotis (Bankrupt) v Sopikiotis (No 2) [2012] FCA 1298 at [4] per Bromberg J; Pattison v McKinnon [2008] FCA 1624 at [2] per Jessup J; Official Receiver v Fall (2008) 5 ABC(NS) 772 at [10]–[12] (Lucev FM (as his Honour then was)). It also expressly extends to ancillary relief such as injunctions and other equitable remedies to prevent the scheme of the Act from (2014) 311 ALR 428 at 450 being defeated. Such ancillary orders are, as the Full Court observed in Talacko at [17], ‘neither novel or unusual’: see also Storey at CLR 557; ALR 134 per Gibbs CJ.”

This quotation is determinative because it directly outlines the established legal precedent for bankruptcy courts to issue orders for vacant possession, warrants of possession, and sale of property when a bankrupt fails to comply with their obligations. It also confirms the availability of ancillary equitable remedies, directly addressing the multifaceted relief sought by the Trustee in this case. It provides robust legal backing for the Court’s decision, particularly in circumstances of non-cooperation.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure:

The respondents, particularly the first respondent, failed primarily due to a complete lack of engagement and non-compliance with statutory duties and court directions.

1. Failure to Cooperate: The core failure was the refusal to deliver vacant possession of the Property, despite repeated requests from the Trustee and the issuance of a Notice to Vacate. This directly impeded the Trustee’s statutory duty to realise the asset.
2. Failure to Respond to Proceedings: Despite being properly served with the application and subsequent court orders, the respondents (excluding the third respondent’s consent to vacate) did not file any evidence or submissions. This meant the Trustee’s evidence and arguments remained uncontroverted, leaving the Court no alternative but to accept the applicant’s case.
3. Unsubstantiated Claims: The bankrupts’ informal claim of holding the Property in trust for their children was not supported by any documentation or formal legal action, rendering it ineffective against the Trustee’s vested interest under the Bankruptcy Act.
4. Absence at Hearing: The absence of the respondents at the substantive hearings reinforced their lack of interest in defending the matter or presenting an alternative solution, allowing the Court to proceed in their absence based solely on the applicant’s uncontested evidence.

Implications
1. Trustee’s Powers are Broad: Understand that a trustee in bankruptcy has extensive powers, backed by the courts, to manage and sell a bankrupt’s assets. This includes compelling vacant possession and dealing with associated logistical challenges.
2. Cooperation is Critical: If you are involved in a bankruptcy proceeding, active cooperation with the trustee is crucial. Ignoring requests or court orders can lead to adverse judgments being made in your absence and potentially more stringent enforcement measures.
3. Property Claims Must be Formal: Informal arrangements or claims over property, even within families (e.g., “held in trust”), may not be recognised in bankruptcy. Ensure all property interests are formally documented and registered to protect them.
4. Court Processes are Rigorous: Even if you choose not to engage with litigation, the court’s procedural requirements, such as proper service of documents, ensure that judgments can still be made. Ignoring court processes can lead to outcomes that you might not have foreseen or preferred.
5. Seek Early Legal Advice: The complexities of bankruptcy law, especially concerning property and multiple parties, necessitate early legal counsel. Professional advice can help navigate statutory duties, avoid non-compliance, and explore all available legal avenues.

Q&A Session

Q1: What exactly does “vacant possession” mean in this context, and why is it so important for the Trustee?
A1: Vacant possession means that the property is completely empty of people and their belongings, and that the person taking possession has immediate and exclusive control. For the Trustee, it is crucial because it allows them to prepare the property for sale without hindrance. Without vacant possession, prospective buyers cannot inspect the property properly, it cannot be cleaned or repaired efficiently, and potential buyers might be deterred, all of which could reduce the sale price and thus the funds available for creditors. It is a fundamental step in fulfilling the Trustee’s statutory duty to realise the bankrupt estate’s assets.

Q2: The judgment mentions a coronial certificate for the deceased respondent instead of a death certificate. Why was this accepted by the Court?
A2: A death certificate is typically the standard legal proof of death. However, in certain circumstances, such as when a death is sudden, accidental, or involves an investigation, a coronial certificate (or interim certificate) might be issued while a full coronial inquiry is underway or awaiting completion. The Court accepted this as sufficient evidence, alongside funeral invoices, because it provided a reasonable basis to infer the death of the second respondent. This demonstrates the Court’s pragmatic approach to evidence when strict adherence to one specific document type might cause undue delay or injustice, especially when the information is uncontroverted.

Q3: The orders give the Trustee broad powers, including subdividing the Property. Does this mean a Trustee can always make such extensive decisions about a bankrupt’s property?
A3: While a Trustee generally has broad powers to manage and realise a bankrupt’s assets, the extent of these powers is usually derived from the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and is exercised under the supervision of the Court. In this specific case, the detailed powers, including subdivision, were explicitly granted by the Court’s orders. This level of detail in the orders indicates that the Court carefully considered the specific impediments to the sale of the Property (e.g., its size, the nature of its occupation) and deemed these powers necessary to achieve the best outcome for the bankrupt estate’s creditors. It doesn’t mean a Trustee can always act unilaterally in such ways, but rather that the Court is prepared to grant extensive powers when a robust justification is presented and the bankrupt is non-cooperative.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Bankruptcy – Trustee’s Application for Vacant Possession and Orders for Sale of Real Property
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

⑨ Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution

• Core Test: Has the Limitation Period expired?
  • Explanation: This refers to the statutory timeframe within which legal proceedings must be initiated. For actions relating to land, the limitation period in New South Wales is generally 12 years from the date the cause of action accrued, as per the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). For other civil claims, it is typically 6 years.
  • Application to Case: In this bankruptcy context, the Trustee’s right to deal with the bankrupt’s property vests immediately upon the sequestration order (s 58 Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)). The application for vacant possession enforces this right. Therefore, the primary limitation period would relate to the Trustee’s appointment and subsequent actions, which were timely in this case. The orders made on 8 September 2025 regarding the removal of belongings and animals, and delivery of vacant possession by 21 October 2025, create specific new compliance deadlines.
• Core Test: Does the Court have Jurisdiction over the matter?
  • Explanation: Jurisdiction refers to the legal authority of a court to hear and determine a case. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia has jurisdiction in bankruptcy matters under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). Additionally, section 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) allows federal courts to apply state or territory laws, including those related to property, where applicable.
  • Application to Case: The Court clearly affirmed its jurisdiction under sections 30, 77, and 134 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to make orders necessary for administering the bankrupt estate. Its ability to incorporate provisions of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) via section 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) further solidified its comprehensive jurisdiction over the Property.
• Core Test: Has the duty of Discovery/Disclosure of evidence been satisfied?
  • Explanation: In civil litigation, parties generally have a duty to disclose relevant documents to each other. In bankruptcy, the bankrupt also has duties under section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to cooperate with the Trustee, which implicitly includes providing information and documents relating to their property and affairs.
  • Application to Case: The applicant (Trustee) satisfied their duty by filing multiple affidavits with supporting exhibits, detailing the Property, the bankrupts’ financial affairs, and attempts to secure vacant possession. The respondents, however, failed to engage in any discovery or disclosure, contributing to the uncontested nature of the applicant’s evidence. The orders reflect the respondents’ failure to comply with their implicit duty to aid in the discovery of property by delivering possession.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

In a situation where statutory law might have gaps or where broader fairness is required, equitable principles or other common law doctrines can be invoked.

• Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel:
  • Did the other party make a clear and unequivocal promise or representation? If the bankrupts had made a clear promise to the Trustee to vacate by a certain date, and the Trustee relied on this, promissory estoppel might be argued if they later refused.
  • Did you act in detrimental reliance on that promise? The Trustee relying on promises to vacate, perhaps by delaying other enforcement actions, could constitute detrimental reliance.
  • Would it be unconscionable for the other party to resile from that promise? Given the Trustee’s statutory duties and the creditors’ interests, it would likely be unconscionable for the bankrupts to renege on such a promise.
  • Result Reference: In this case, there was an initial attempt at settlement discussions, implying potential promises. Had those discussions resulted in specific undertakings from the bankrupts which were then breached, estoppel could have been a strong alternative argument, even without a formal written agreement to vacate, to prevent the bankrupts from frustrating the Trustee’s actions.
• Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust:
  • Has the other party received a benefit (money or labor) at your expense? Is it against conscience for them to retain that benefit without payment? If, for instance, the bankrupts had engaged in actions that depleted the bankrupt estate or maintained a beneficial interest in the Property through undeclared means while others bore the burdens, an argument for unjust enrichment could arise.
  • Result Reference: The bankrupts’ continued occupation of the Property without contributing to its upkeep or the mortgage, while it remained an asset of the estate meant for creditors, could theoretically give rise to an argument of unjust enrichment. The Trustee could argue it is unconscionable for them to retain the benefit of occupation at the expense of the creditors. This was implicitly covered by the Trustee’s overall application to realise the asset, but could be a distinct claim if the legal ownership was more ambiguous.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds:
* Trustee’s Appointment: The Trustee’s rights to the property arise from the date of the sequestration order. Any application to enforce those rights generally needs to be made within a reasonable timeframe relative to the administration of the estate.
* Service of Documents: All parties must be properly served with originating applications and subsequent court orders to ensure procedural fairness. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) detail specific methods of service.

Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
* Death of a Party: In the event of a party’s death, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) allow for proceedings to continue by or against the legal personal representative of the deceased, or orders can be made if a deceased party has no legal personal representative. This case accepted a coronial certificate as proof of death.
* Non-Appearance: While generally a party must attend hearings, Rule 22.04(1)(b)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) permits the Court to proceed in the absence of a party if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, especially when there’s proof of proper service.
* Unsubstantiated Claims: Informal claims of beneficial interests (e.g., trust arrangements for children) in property, particularly those lacking documentary evidence, face a relatively high risk of being disregarded in formal bankruptcy proceedings where assets legally vest in the trustee.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time or conditions. Carefully compare your circumstances against the exceptions above, as they are often the key to successfully filing a case.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle:
It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving:
* Applications for vacant possession by a trustee in bankruptcy where bankrupts are non-cooperative.
* The exercise of broad ancillary powers by federal courts in bankruptcy, specifically the ability to incorporate state property law provisions for practical relief.
* The sufficiency of evidence for proof of death in proceedings where a formal death certificate is unavailable.

Citation Method:
* As Positive Support: When your matter involves a trustee seeking to realise a bankrupt’s property against resistant or absent parties, or requires a broad range of orders (including sale, subdivision, and removal of chattels/animals), citing this authority can strengthen your argument for comprehensive relief and the Court’s inherent powers to support a trustee’s statutory duties.
* As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case, you should emphasize any uniqueness of the current matter, such as the bankrupt’s active cooperation, the existence of formal equitable interests in the property, or other assets available to satisfy creditors, to argue that this precedent’s broad orders may not be applicable.

Anonymisation Rule: Do not use the real names of the parties; strictly use professional procedural titles such as Applicant / Respondent or Appellant / Respondent.

Conclusion
This case powerfully illustrates the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring the effective administration of bankruptcy estates, even in the face of non-compliance and complex factual matrices. It serves as a stark reminder that statutory duties, once vested, will be upheld with comprehensive judicial support. Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer
This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Woodgate (Trustee) v Rumble, in the matter of Rumble (Bankrupt) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1581), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.
The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.
Please format all the above content and send it to me, and it involves professional legal content! You must not omit anything, and you must not allow others to find legal loopholes. For example: Article 4AA of the “Fact Partner Relationship Law” has nine clauses! Do not omit any, just generate the content of the main text and the title for me. The entire text should be outpFinal check of the output content

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.