News

On 4 September 2026, the New South Wales Court of Appeal delivered judgment in Barel v Barel [2026] NSWCA 179. Ben Koch, leading Andrew Berriman, appeared for the successful respondent instructed by Elias Yamine of ESY Lawyers Pty Ltd.

The appeal concerned challenges to findings of fact about three oral loan agreements established by the respondent in District Court proceedings where the primary judge had made detailed credibility and reliability findings against the appellant. The appellant sought to overturn the primary judge’s findings as to the existence of those loan agreements and of a term that repayment was due upon the sale of a property. The appellant argued there were a small number of critical documents which undermined his Honour’s findings.

The decision emphasises the difficulty an appellant faces in challenging closely reasoned findings of fact turning upon the primary judge’s assessment of the reliability and credibility of critical witnesses. The appellate court exercises significant caution in intervening in respect of findings of fact reached after a contested hearing. It is not enough to point to documents which might be said to be inconsistent with those findings, particularly where no challenge is made to the underlying credibility and reliability findings or to other findings of fact that undermine the reliability of those documents for the purposes advanced by the appellant.

See the full judgment here.

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.