Application for Leave to Continue Proceedings Against Bankrupt Defendants for Breaches of Directors' Duties: Should Special Leave be Granted under s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act?

Bankruptcy Stay vs Directors’ Duty Claims: Should a Liquidator Receive Leave to Keep Suing a Bankrupt Defendant for Personal Liability in the Federal Court?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Special Gold Pty Ltd (in liq) v Dyldam Developments Pty Limited (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2025] FCA 765 (NSD 369 of 2025; NSD 340 of 2025), 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 Court of Australia (General Division), New South Wales Registry
Presiding Judge: Jackman J
Cause of Action: Practice and procedure application for leave to continue proceedings against bankrupt defendants pursuant to s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), in the context of pleaded breach of fiduciary and statutory duties and alleged knowing assistance or involvement
Judgment Date: 7 July 2025 (ex tempore, revised from transcript)
Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Keyword 3: Section 58(3)(b) leave
Keyword 4: Liquidator continuation of proceedings
Keyword 5: Directors’ duties claims
Keyword 6: Overlap of personal and proprietary remedies

Background

The Plaintiff, a company in liquidation, had commenced Federal Court proceedings against multiple defendants. Within those proceedings, the Plaintiff alleged wrongdoing of the kind commonly seen in corporate insolvency disputes: allegations of breach of fiduciary and statutory duties against two individual defendants, and allegations that another individual defendant knowingly assisted or was involved in those breaches.

Just before the hearing week, two individual defendants took steps to enter bankruptcy through debtors’ petitions, and another individual defendant was already subject to a sequestration order. Those bankruptcy events triggered a procedural barrier: the Plaintiff could not take “fresh steps” against the bankrupt defendants without the Court’s leave under s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

The immediate question for the Court was not the ultimate merits of the directors’ duties allegations. It was whether, despite bankruptcy, the Federal Court should permit the Plaintiff to continue the proceedings against the bankrupt defendants, rather than forcing the Plaintiff to shift the dispute into the bankruptcy administration process through proofs of debt.

Core Disputes and Claims

Core legal focus question: When defendants in an already-prepared directors’ duties proceeding become bankrupt, should the Court grant leave under s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) so the liquidator can continue pursuing personal liability claims in the Federal Court, subject to conditions restricting enforcement?

Relief sought by the Plaintiff:
1. Leave to continue and take fresh steps in the Federal Court proceedings against the bankrupt individual defendants pursuant to s 58(3)(b).
2. Orders managing the practical consequences of leave, including conditions about enforcement of any judgment in light of the bankruptcy regime.

Position of the bankrupt defendants:
They relied on the operation of s 58(3)(b) to prevent fresh steps absent leave, pointing to the formal bankruptcy steps already taken, including the appointment of a trustee and the existence of a sequestration order.

What the Court was required to determine:
Whether the dispute was of a kind that should be resolved within the Federal Court proceeding, or whether it should be channelled into the bankruptcy process through proofs of debt and trustee administration, bearing in mind the statutory purpose of the stay and the efficiency and fairness of the chosen forum.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The litigation arose in a familiar corporate insolvency pattern.

A company enters liquidation, and the liquidator, acting for the benefit of creditors, investigates past transactions, control, and decision-making. When the liquidator identifies conduct said to have harmed the company or depleted its assets, the liquidator may bring proceedings seeking remedies against those alleged to be responsible.

In this matter, the Plaintiff liquidator pursued claims framed as breaches of fiduciary and statutory duties against two individual defendants, and related claims against another individual defendant for knowing assistance or involvement. These kinds of claims commonly carry two dimensions of relief:

Personal remedies, which seek to impose personal liability, usually expressed as compensation, equitable compensation, damages, or account-type relief, resulting in a judgment debt.
Proprietary remedies, which aim to recover specific property, traceable assets, or impose remedial proprietary interests, where the relief is not merely to prove for a dividend but to vindicate a property claim.

The conflict escalated into a procedural pressure-point because the litigation was not at an early stage. The matter had been prepared for hearing in the immediate week. In that setting, bankruptcy steps taken by individual defendants created a real-world “fork in the road”:

If the Federal Court refused leave, the Plaintiff would be pushed toward the bankruptcy process for personal claims, typically by lodging proofs of debt and litigating any trustee rejection within that system.
If the Federal Court granted leave, the Plaintiff could continue in the existing proceeding, but enforcement and priority would still need to respect the bankruptcy regime.

Detail Reconstruction: Relationship, Financial Interweaving, and the Emerging Conflict

In a corporate insolvency dispute, the “relationship” is usually not personal but institutional and financial:

The company’s financial position becomes intertwined with decisions said to be made by controllers, directors, or those influencing directors.
Creditors’ interests, through liquidation, become aligned behind the liquidator’s duty to collect and recover assets.
Defendants’ personal exposure increases when allegations are pleaded as fiduciary and statutory duty breaches, because those allegations are designed to impose personal consequences for misconduct.

Here, the procedural trigger was the conversion of personal exposure into bankruptcy status. The moment the defendants became bankrupt, the Bankruptcy Act’s stay mechanisms became central. That is the practical point at which insolvency law shifts from “litigation momentum” to “collective administration”.

Conflict Foreshadowing: Decisive Moments Leading to the Interlocutory Application

The decisive moments were not a dramatic confrontation in open court. They were formal insolvency events:

The signing and filing of debtors’ petitions by two individual defendants, leading to the issue of trustee appointment certificates.
The existence of a sequestration order against another individual defendant.

Those steps were enough to activate s 58(3)(b) as an immediate procedural barrier, forcing the Plaintiff to bring an interlocutory process seeking leave to continue.

In plain terms, the litigation was ready to run, but the law required the Plaintiff to first ask: “May we keep going against these bankrupt defendants, or must we stop and shift into the bankruptcy process?”

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

This decision was short and procedural, but it still turned on concrete evidence and specific assertions placed before the Court.

Plaintiff’s Main Evidence and Arguments

Key procedural material relied on by the Plaintiff included:

The existence and stage of the Federal Court proceedings, including that the matter had been fully prepared for hearing in the immediate week.
The pleaded nature of the claims: allegations of breach of fiduciary and statutory duties against two individual defendants and knowing assistance or involvement against another individual defendant.
The character of relief sought: both personal remedies that would ordinarily result in a judgment debt and proprietary remedies that are not, as a matter of substance, dependent on permission under the bankruptcy stay to the same extent as personal claims.
The practical efficiency point: the Federal Court could provide prompt and efficient certainty if leave were granted, especially given overlap between personal and proprietary aspects.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

The bankrupt defendants’ key procedural material included:

Evidence of bankruptcy status:
- Two debtors’ petitions signed and filed with the Australian Financial Security Authority.
- Certificates of appointment of trustee issued, naming a trustee.
Evidence of existing bankruptcy order for another individual defendant: a sequestration order already in force.

The core of their position, procedurally, was that s 58(3)(b) prevented fresh steps absent leave, and that the bankruptcy regime should protect bankrupt persons from multiplicity of proceedings and related expense.

Core Dispute Points

The statutory gatekeeping issue: Does s 58(3)(b) apply so as to prevent fresh steps without leave?
The forum suitability issue: Are the questions of law and fact more appropriately dealt with in the Federal Court proceedings than through the proof of debt and trustee process?
The efficiency and overlap issue: Given the overlap between personal claims requiring leave and proprietary claims not subject to the same constraint, does it favour leave to avoid fragmented dispute resolution?
The fairness management issue: If leave is granted, what conditions should be imposed to ensure enforcement respects the bankruptcy regime and the distribution principle?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

In many interlocutory disputes, affidavits are the backbone: they crystallise the procedural facts, the stage of litigation, and the practical consequences of competing orders. In this decision, the reasons do not set out affidavit content in detail, but the essential evidentiary structure is still identifiable.

The parties’ competing “stories” were built through formal materials that perform an affidavit-like function in interlocutory practice: witness statements about procedural events, documentary attachments confirming bankruptcy status, and submissions articulating the practical consequences.

How Each Party Used Formal Evidence to Build a Persuasive Narrative

The Plaintiff’s narrative technique, as commonly used by liquidators, would be expected to do three things:

Anchor the Court to the purpose of the proceeding: recovery for creditors through orderly determination of contested wrongdoing.
Show why the Federal Court is the best place to resolve contested issues: the proceeding is already on foot, prepared, and capable of prompt determination.
Emphasise practical overlap: where proprietary claims continue regardless, splitting the matter creates duplication and inconsistent outcomes.

The bankrupt defendants’ narrative technique is usually to emphasise:

The statutory policy of collective administration in bankruptcy.
The protective function of the stay, guarding against multiple proceedings and cumulative expense.

Comparison of Competing Expressions of the Same Procedural Fact

A typical fault-line in insolvency interlocutory matters is how the same fact is framed:

Fact: bankruptcy appointment documents exist.
- The bankrupt defendants frame this as a statutory barrier that should be respected unless compelling reasons exist.
- The Plaintiff frames this as a procedural complication that should not derail a near-ready hearing and should not force migration of contested factual issues into trustee administration.

Strategic Intent Behind the Judge’s Procedural Directions Regarding Affidavits

Even where not fully described, the strategic intent in a decision like this is clear: the Court requires the parties to put forward enough formal proof of bankruptcy events and enough explanation of the litigation’s readiness so the Court can decide suitability of forum quickly and decisively.

In short, the Court’s procedural approach is designed to prevent the leave question from becoming a secondary trial. The Court decides the gateway, not the whole case.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final hearing, the Court’s key procedural arrangements in this case were directed to managing whether and how the Plaintiff could proceed against bankrupt defendants.

The decision resulted in:

Leave granted to the Plaintiff to continue and take fresh steps against the bankrupt individual defendants in the Federal Court proceedings.
A condition that any judgment enforcement affecting bankrupt property or provable debts could not occur except through proof of debt lodgement with the trustee, unless further leave were obtained from the Federal Court and or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia pursuant to s 58(3).
Costs order that each party bear its own costs of the interlocutory leave application.

Although specific pre-hearing orders are not detailed beyond the leave framework, the logic is that the Court structured orders to allow the litigation to proceed while preserving the integrity of bankruptcy distribution rules.

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

This was a short, ex tempore decision delivered in a tightly compressed procedural setting. The hearing, in substance, was not a full merits contest. It was an urgent, high-stakes gateway fight about where the merits contest should occur.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The Plaintiff approached the hearing as a practical and legal problem:

The Court was asked to recognise that the proceeding was ready for hearing that week.
The Plaintiff identified that the pleaded causes of action raised contestable questions of law and fact.
The Plaintiff pressed the idea that the Federal Court, already seized of the matter, could efficiently determine those issues.

The bankrupt defendants’ procedural stance was anchored in the statutory consequence of bankruptcy:

The filing of debtors’ petitions and trustee appointment documents, and the existence of a sequestration order, were deployed as a statutory “stop sign”.
Their position depended on the premise that the bankruptcy process is the proper forum for personal claims, unless the Court is satisfied that litigation is the more suitable vehicle.

The “break point” in the logic was the policy purpose of s 58(3)(b): it is not an automatic shield against any continuation; it is a mechanism to channel disputes into the most suitable forum, balancing efficiency, fairness, and the collective nature of bankruptcy.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The decisive evidence was procedural and documentary:

Confirmation of bankruptcy status and trustee appointment for the relevant defendants.
The status and readiness of the Federal Court proceedings for imminent hearing.
The nature of relief sought, including proprietary remedies and personal remedies.

The confrontation was therefore not about whose witness was truthful in the traditional sense. It was about whether the Court should allow a contested corporate wrongdoing dispute to be resolved by judicial trial rather than by trustee administration disputes over proofs of debt.

Judicial Reasoning

The Court identified the statutory purpose and applied a practical, forum-suitability test. The Court held that the leave mechanism exists to prevent multiplicity and expense for bankrupt persons, while still allowing trial where issues are more suitably dealt with by the Court rather than by proof of debt disputes with the trustee.

The provision has the purpose of ensuring that a bankrupt is not subject to the expense of money and time involved in a multiplicity of proceedings except where the issues will be more suitably dealt with by a trial in a Court proceeding rather than the creditor being required to lodge a proof of debt in the debtor’s bankruptcy.

This statement was determinative because it frames s 58(3)(b) as a balancing mechanism, not a rigid prohibition. The controlling question becomes suitability: is judicial trial the better forum for these contested issues than trustee proof administration?

The Court then connected suitability to the reality of the case: contested questions of law and fact would arise either way, but were more appropriately dealt with in the Federal Court proceedings, particularly because the matter was prepared for hearing and because of overlap between personal and proprietary claims.

Contestable questions of law and fact are likely to arise, whichever process is adopted for their resolution. In my view, they are more appropriately dealt with in these Court proceedings rather than left to a dispute over whether proofs of debt should be accepted by the trustee in bankruptcy.

This statement was determinative because it rejects the idea that bankruptcy administration automatically produces a simpler path. Where the dispute is inherently contestable and trial-like, moving it into trustee proof disputes may simply relocate complexity and delay without improving fairness.

The Court also emphasised the efficiency of immediate judicial determination and the overlap of remedies:

A ready-to-hear proceeding supports leave.
Overlapping proprietary claims that do not require leave supports keeping the whole dispute together.

Those are classic judicial economy factors expressed in insolvency procedure language.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court made orders granting leave to the Plaintiff to continue and take fresh steps against the relevant bankrupt defendants in the Federal Court proceedings, subject to an enforcement condition.

Orders in substance:

Leave granted to continue and take fresh steps against the bankrupt defendants in the Federal Court proceedings.
Condition imposed: the Plaintiff must not enforce any judgment obtained as a result of those proceedings insofar as it relates to the bankrupt’s property or a provable debt divisible among creditors pursuant to s 116(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), other than by lodging a proof of debt with the trustee, without further leave under s 58(3).
Costs: each party to pay its own costs of the leave application.

The practical outcome was a controlled continuation: the litigation could proceed to determination, but enforcement against bankrupt estates remained constrained by bankruptcy distribution principles unless leave were later obtained.

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

This chapter disassembles the decision through a Five-Link Structure: Statutory Provisions, Evidence Chain, Judicial Original Quotation, and Losing Party’s Reasons for Failure, with the required content order.

Special Analysis

This decision has jurisprudential value because it demonstrates a sharply practical approach to the intersection of:

Corporate insolvency litigation, where liquidators pursue contested wrongdoing claims.
Bankruptcy administration, where individual defendants seek collective resolution and protection from fragmented litigation.

The decision illustrates that s 58(3)(b) leave is not an indulgence granted only in rare circumstances. It is an evaluative tool: the Court tests whether judicial trial is the better vehicle for contested issues than proof of debt disputes, especially where:

The litigation is already advanced and ready for hearing.
The issues are contestable and would require substantial adjudication either way.
There is substantial overlap between claims requiring leave and claims not requiring leave, making fragmentation inefficient and potentially unfair.

A further jurisprudential feature is the Court’s use of an enforcement condition. This is a careful insolvency technique: it separates adjudication from execution. The Court allows determination of rights and liabilities, while protecting the collective bankruptcy distribution system from being undermined by unilateral enforcement.

Judgment Points

The Court treated the statutory purpose of s 58(3)(b) as a balancing principle, not a mechanical barrier.
The Court focused on suitability of forum, evaluated by contestability and efficiency.
The Court accepted that trustee proof processes can be an unsuitable substitute for adjudicating contested questions of law and fact.
The Court used the advanced procedural posture, including readiness for hearing, as a decisive efficiency factor.
The Court treated overlap with proprietary remedies as a strong reason to keep matters together in one proceeding.
The Court granted leave but imposed an enforcement condition preserving bankruptcy distribution integrity.

Legal Basis

The primary legal basis was s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), which prevents creditors from taking fresh steps in proceedings against a bankrupt without leave.

The decision also referenced the bankruptcy property and distribution concept through s 116(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), reflected in the enforcement condition.

The controlling legal approach can be expressed as:

The Court held that leave should be granted where the issues are more suitably dealt with by trial in the Court proceeding than by proof of debt processes, assessed on the facts and the nature of the dispute.
The Court held that the protective purpose of the stay can be respected through conditions managing enforcement, rather than by forcing all disputes into trustee administration.

Evidence Chain

Even in a short ex tempore judgment, the reasoning proceeds on an evidence chain:

Bankruptcy status established by formal steps: debtors’ petitions, trustee appointment certificates, sequestration order.
Statutory consequence: s 58(3)(b) stay applies, preventing fresh steps absent leave.
Nature of the proceeding: pleaded breach of fiduciary and statutory duties and knowing assistance or involvement.
Nature of remedies: personal remedies requiring leave, proprietary remedies not subject to the same leave requirement, creating overlap.
Practical posture: the matter was fully prepared for hearing that week.
Comparative suitability: contestable questions would arise regardless of forum; Federal Court trial is more appropriate than trustee proof disputes.
Protective management: enforcement condition preserves bankruptcy distribution principles.

That chain shows how the Court moved from formal status facts to an evaluative conclusion about forum and case management.

Judicial Original Quotation

Contestable questions of law and fact are likely to arise, whichever process is adopted for their resolution. In my view, they are more appropriately dealt with in these Court proceedings rather than left to a dispute over whether proofs of debt should be accepted by the trustee in bankruptcy.

This passage is the ratio-like core. It expresses the Court’s determinative assessment: where a dispute is inherently contestable, it is not necessarily efficient or fair to shift it into trustee proof administration. The Court held that the better forum is the existing Court proceeding, particularly where it is hearing-ready and can deliver prompt certainty.

Further, there is substantial overlap between the claims for personal remedies which require leave, and the claims for proprietary remedies which do not.

This passage is determinative because it explains why the Court resisted fragmentation. Where proprietary claims continue regardless, refusing leave would not reduce proceedings; it would multiply pathways and increase cost, the very harm the stay is designed to prevent.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The bankrupt defendants’ position failed not because bankruptcy was irrelevant, but because their reliance on the stay did not answer the Court’s suitability analysis.

Their failure can be analysed in 6 linked points:

Over-reliance on the existence of bankruptcy events without engaging the statutory purpose exception.
The Court accepted the stay’s purpose, but the statute itself contemplates leave where trial is more suitable.
Failure to persuade the Court that proof of debt processes would be more efficient or appropriate.
The Court determined that contestable questions would arise in any event, undermining the argument that trustee processes are inherently simpler.
Inability to overcome the advanced stage of the proceeding.
Where a matter is prepared for hearing, refusing leave tends to waste sunk costs and delay resolution.
Inability to address overlap with proprietary claims.
Since proprietary remedies were still in play, refusing leave would not prevent litigation expense; it would create parallel disputes.
Insufficient answer to the Court’s need for prompt certainty.
The Court emphasised the capacity to provide certainty promptly and efficiently through the existing proceeding.
Underestimation of the Court’s ability to protect bankruptcy policy through enforcement conditions.
The Court addressed bankruptcy protection not by stopping adjudication, but by conditioning enforcement to preserve the bankruptcy distribution scheme.

Key to Victory

The successful party’s victory rested on combining legal principle with procedural realism:

The Plaintiff framed the leave question as a forum suitability assessment grounded in the statutory purpose of s 58(3)(b).
The Plaintiff emphasised that the dispute would require contested determination either way, making judicial trial more suitable.
The Plaintiff relied on the readiness of the proceeding for imminent hearing, making judicial resolution more efficient.
The Plaintiff highlighted overlap with proprietary remedies, showing that refusing leave would not reduce proceedings and would likely increase duplication.
The Plaintiff accepted the bankruptcy regime’s integrity by supporting enforcement controls, allowing the Court to grant leave without undermining collective distribution principles.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

In a short ex tempore judgment, comparable authorities are not listed in the reasons. For practical research and submissions, the following categories of authority are commonly used in this area, and should be selected carefully by reference to the facts and jurisdiction:

Authorities on the purpose and operation of s 58 stays and leave in bankruptcy proceedings, focusing on suitability of forum and avoidance of multiplicity.
Authorities on when proprietary claims or non-provable claims may proceed notwithstanding bankruptcy status, and how Courts manage overlap with provable debts.
Authorities on case management principles in insolvency litigation, including avoiding fragmented determinations across different fora where issues substantially overlap.

When preparing submissions, practitioners should locate Federal Court and Full Court decisions dealing with s 58(3)(b) leave, and align the reasoning to the specific features highlighted here: contestable issues, readiness for hearing, overlap with proprietary relief, and enforceability conditions.

Implications

Bankruptcy is not a universal pause button. It is a gatekeeping mechanism. If the dispute is genuinely contestable and trial-ready, the Court may allow it to continue, while still protecting the bankruptcy estate.
Efficiency is not merely a convenience. In insolvency litigation, wasted costs reduce the pool available for creditors and distort the fairness of the process. Courts pay attention to whether a move into trustee administration would actually simplify anything.
If your claim includes proprietary remedies, fragmentation risk rises. When property claims remain live, trying to stop only the personal claims can create parallel disputes that increase expense and confusion.
A careful enforcement strategy can be as important as winning leave. Even if you obtain judgment, bankruptcy distribution rules can still control how and when you may enforce. Planning for proof of debt and enforcement leave is part of strategic litigation.
For the public, the lesson is simple: legal processes are designed to manage conflict fairly, not to reward procedural manoeuvres. The Court will often look behind the form of an event to its practical consequences for fairness, efficiency, and orderly dispute resolution.

Q&A Session

Q1: If a defendant becomes bankrupt, does that mean a liquidator must stop the court case immediately?
A1: Not always. The Bankruptcy Act stay prevents fresh steps without leave, but the Court can grant leave where the issues are more suitably resolved by trial in the existing Court proceedings, especially where contested questions and efficiency considerations favour continuation.

Q2: If leave is granted and the liquidator wins, can the liquidator enforce the judgment like any other creditor?
A2: Not automatically. Courts often impose conditions to ensure enforcement does not undermine bankruptcy distribution rules. The liquidator may be required to lodge a proof of debt and may need additional leave before taking enforcement steps against bankrupt estate property.

Q3: Why would the Court prefer a trial to a proof of debt dispute with a trustee?
A3: Because some disputes are inherently contestable and require judicial findings of law and fact. In those circumstances, shifting the contest into trustee proof administration may not simplify matters and may increase delay and duplication, particularly if related proprietary claims remain in the Court proceeding.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype

Corporate Insolvency Litigation Procedure: Bankruptcy stay and leave application within a liquidator’s proceeding alleging breaches of fiduciary and statutory duties and knowing assistance or involvement.

Judgment Nature Definition

Interlocutory Judgment: A procedural determination granting leave under s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), with conditions regulating enforcement.

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

Core Test Standards for Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution

This case falls within Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution because it is fundamentally about procedural control of litigation steps in the context of insolvency events. The following core elements should be checked carefully, noting that outcomes tend to depend on the precise facts and procedural posture.

Step 1: Jurisdiction and Power to Grant Leave

Identify the court seized of the proceeding and its power to grant leave under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
Identify the relevant bankruptcy event: debtors’ petition and trustee appointment, or sequestration order.
Identify the statutory consequence: whether the proceeding is stayed from fresh steps absent leave under s 58(3)(b).
Identify whether the relief sought involves steps against the bankrupt personally that are subject to the stay, and distinguish proprietary claims that may proceed on a different footing.

Practical checkpoint: If a party is bankrupt, the litigation does not disappear; it becomes regulated. Leave is the gateway for fresh steps.

Step 2: Suitability of Forum Assessment

The Court typically assesses whether issues are more suitably dealt with by trial in the Court proceeding rather than by proof of debt administration. Factors that tend to be considered include:

Contestability of issues: whether the dispute raises substantial questions of law and fact requiring judicial determination.
Complexity and overlap: whether the issues overlap with claims or parties remaining in the Court proceeding.
Procedural posture: whether the matter is trial-ready or would require substantial new preparation.
Efficiency: whether the Court can provide prompt determination and reduce duplication.
Fairness: whether forcing a party into proof of debt disputes would be likely to increase expense, delay, or fragmentation.
Bankruptcy policy: whether the bankrupt would be exposed to multiplicity and undue costs, balanced against the need for proper adjudication of contested rights.

Non-absolute caution: These factors do not operate mechanically. Different judges may weigh them differently depending on the case posture.

Step 3: Distinguish Determination of Rights from Enforcement Against the Estate

Even if leave is granted and the proceeding continues:

Identify whether a resulting judgment would create a provable debt, and whether enforcement is constrained by the bankruptcy regime.
Identify the trustee’s role: proof of debt lodgement is often required for participation in distributions.
Identify whether additional leave may be required for enforcement steps beyond proof of debt, especially where enforcement would affect estate property.

Strategic checkpoint: Winning leave is not the same as winning recoveries. Enforcement architecture matters.

Step 4: Limitation Period and Procedural Bars

Even though limitation was not central in this decision, it is a core civil litigation element to self-check in any related claim:

Identify the cause of action and its applicable limitation period under the relevant State or Commonwealth regime.
Identify accrual date and any postponement mechanisms, including discoverability or concealment issues where relevant.
Identify whether insolvency events affect limitation calculations, including any statutory suspensions or practical constraints.

Non-absolute caution: Limitation analysis tends to be fact-sensitive, and extension principles vary.

Step 5: Disclosure and Evidence Management

In complex insolvency litigation:

Identify what documents are necessary to prove the alleged duty breach, involvement, and causation of loss.
Identify whether the bankruptcy trustee holds documents relevant to contested issues.
Identify whether subpoena or notice to produce mechanisms are needed, and how that interacts with bankruptcy administration.
Ensure compliance with procedural rules on discovery and admissibility.

Practical checkpoint: Evidence control often determines whether the dispute can be resolved efficiently.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Even where statutory avenues are constrained, equity and common law doctrines can provide alternative paths. The feasibility depends heavily on facts and the availability of evidence.

Promissory or Proprietary Estoppel

Identify whether a clear and unequivocal representation was made by one party to another regarding rights, payment, or property control.
Identify reliance: whether the claimant acted in a way that materially changed position, incurring cost or foregoing alternatives.
Identify detriment and unconscionability: whether it would be against conscience for the representor to resile.

Potential outcome: Equity may restrain departure from the representation or shape relief to prevent unconscionable harm.

Non-absolute caution: Estoppel relief tends to be shaped to the minimum necessary to avoid unconscionability and is highly fact-dependent.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust

Identify a benefit obtained by the respondent at the claimant’s expense.
Identify the absence of juristic reason: whether there is no legal basis justifying retention of the benefit.
Identify whether retention is against conscience, particularly in closely connected dealings.
Identify whether a constructive trust is an appropriate remedial response or whether restitutionary relief is more suitable.

Potential outcome: Restitutionary orders or a declaration of beneficial interest may be available where facts support it.

Non-absolute caution: Constructive trust arguments tend to face intensive scrutiny, particularly where they affect insolvency priorities.

Procedural Fairness and Abuse of Process

Where bankruptcy processes or litigation steps are used in a way that raises fairness concerns:

Identify whether procedural decisions deprived a party of a fair opportunity to be heard.
Identify whether fragmented proceedings create inconsistency or oppression.
Identify whether an abuse of process argument is available to prevent duplicative or oppressive litigation conduct.

Potential outcome: Case management and procedural orders may control unfairness without foreclosing substantive rights.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

Bankruptcy stay threshold: once bankruptcy occurs, fresh steps are barred without leave under s 58(3)(b) in relevant circumstances.
Proof of debt threshold: a creditor seeking to recover from estate property typically must lodge a proof of debt and participate in the collective distribution mechanism.
Enforcement threshold: even with judgment, enforcement against bankrupt estate property tends to be constrained and may require leave.

Exceptional Channels

Leave pathway: where issues are more suitably dealt with by a Court trial, leave can be granted to continue proceedings notwithstanding bankruptcy.
Proprietary claim pathway: claims to specific property, or relief that does not amount to enforcing a provable debt against estate property, may proceed on a different footing and can be a critical driver against fragmentation.
Case management conditions: Courts can allow continuation but protect bankruptcy policy by imposing enforcement conditions, requiring proof of debt lodgement, or requiring further leave for execution.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a claim merely because bankruptcy has intervened. Carefully assess whether the dispute is contestable, trial-ready, and intertwined with proprietary issues, because those factors tend to influence whether leave is granted and how enforcement is controlled.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

It is recommended to cite this case in submissions or analysis involving:

Leave under s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to continue proceedings against bankrupt defendants.
Forum suitability reasoning where contested questions of law and fact would arise regardless of whether the dispute is handled by Court trial or proof of debt processes.
Case management principles in insolvency contexts, including reliance on overlap between personal and proprietary remedies to avoid fragmentation.
The use of enforcement conditions to preserve bankruptcy distribution principles while permitting adjudication.

Citation Method

As Positive Support:
Where your matter involves a trial-ready proceeding, contested questions of law and fact, and overlap with proprietary relief, citing this authority can support an argument that leave should be granted so the Court proceeding can deliver prompt certainty, while managing bankruptcy policy through enforcement conditions.

As a Distinguishing Reference:
If the opposing party cites this case, you can distinguish it by emphasising the absence of key supporting factors, such as where the proceeding is not advanced, where issues are not genuinely contestable, where trustee proof processes would be materially simpler, or where there is no meaningful overlap with proprietary relief.

######Anonymisation Rule:
In describing party conduct in analogous reasoning, use procedural titles such as Plaintiff, Defendant, Applicant, Respondent, Appellant, or Bankrupt, and avoid identifying individuals by personal names.

######Conclusion

This decision shows how insolvency procedure is designed to balance two principles: the collective protection of bankruptcy administration and the Court’s duty to resolve genuinely contestable disputes efficiently. Leave under s 58(3)(b) is granted where trial is the more suitable vehicle, and the integrity of bankruptcy distribution can still be protected through careful enforcement conditions.

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 Court of Australia (Special Gold Pty Ltd (in liq) v Dyldam Developments Pty Limited (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2025] FCA 765), 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.

Original Case File:

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