On Friday, 14 August 2026, the Federal Court of Australia (Needham J) delivered judgment in Maroon v Wengel (Trustee), in the matter of Maroon (Bankrupt) (Trial Judgment) [2026] FCA 1129, in which Ben Koch and Nicole Maddocks (instructed by Lewis Seelenmeyer and Demi Farah of Independent Legal) appeared for both the successful trustee in bankruptcy and Aquamore Credit Equity Pty Ltd.

The proceedings concerned an application made by Mrs Maroon to annul her bankruptcy pursuant to s. 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), which was heard together with an application by her trustee in bankruptcy for possession of real property. Mrs Maroon argued that the sequestration order which led to her bankruptcy ought not to have been made. The basis for that argument was that there was in truth and reality no debt owed by her, as the underlying transactions were procured by undue influence and/or unconscionable conduct.

Her Honour found that, while the relevant transactions were procured by undue influence and unconscionable conduct, and the bankruptcy court “may not” have made the sequestration order, Mrs Maroon had failed to demonstrate that the sequestration order ought not to have been made (in the relevant sense that the Court was bound not to make the sequestration order). Her Honour otherwise found that, even if she had found that the Court was bound not to make the sequestration order, there were a number of factors which would have led the Court not to exercise its discretion to annul the bankruptcy.

The decision emphasises the significant difficulties an applicant has in seeking an annulment of a bankruptcy.

See the full judgment here.