//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWSC 676
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-06-12
McGrath J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Alloys International Printer & Hardware Division Pty Ltd v Print Management Facilities Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 676
Hearing dates: 12 June 2026
Date of orders: 12 June 2026
Decision date: 12 June 2026
Jurisdiction: Equity - Applications List
Before: McGrath J
Decision: Funds to be paid out of court
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for payment out of funds held in court from sale of property over which there was a priority dispute –where the parties involved in the priority dispute have proprietary interests and agreed to the payment out of court for the expenses of the trustee in bankruptcy and share the balance between them – where there are no other competing claimants to those funds – HELD – funds to be paid out of court and proceedings otherwise dismissed
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), r 55.11
Cases Cited: Commonwealth Bank of Australia v The Estate of the Late Mahmoud Slieman [2010] NSWSC 661
Eldsure Pty Ltd v Sheridan Legal Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1616
Reozone Pty Ltd v Rene Santoro & Ors [2018] NSWSC 650
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Alloys International Printer & Hardware Division Pty Ltd (First Plaintiff and First Cross Defendant) Print Management Facilities Australia Pty Ltd (First Defendant and First Cross Claimant) Lumi Finance Pty Ltd (Second Defendant and Second Cross Defendant) Teofany Trunzo (Third Defendant and Third Cross Defendant) Bizcap AU Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant) Finstro Securities Pty Ltd (Fifth Defendant) Chamberlains Law Firm Pty Ltd (Sixth Defendant) Thyge Trafford-Jones (Seventh Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
A L Oakes (Plaintiff and Seventh Defendant)
Solicitors:
Results Legal (First Plaintiff and First Cross Defendant)
Sasha Legal Pty Ltd (First Defendant and First Cross Claimant)
SLF Lawyers (Second Defendant and Second Cross Defendant)
George Loupos and Associates (Third Defendant and Third Cross Defendant)
Broadside Lawyers (Fourth Defendant)
Patane Lawyers (Fifth Defendant)
Chamberlains Law Firm (Sixth Defendant)
Oakbridge Lawyers (Seventh Defendant)
File Number(s): 2025/00288913
Publication restriction: Nil
The first defendant, Print Management Facilities Australia Pty Ltd, has made an application by notice of motion filed 12 May 2026 in which it seeks orders pursuant to r 55.11 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) for the payment out of court of the amount of $363,830.62, which was paid into court on 7 April 2026, plus any accrued interest.
The application arises in proceedings in which there has been a priority dispute in relation to the proceeds of sale of a property in Hinchinbrook, New South Wales (Hinchinbrook Property). The registered proprietor of the Hinchinbrook Property was James Leon, an undischarged bankrupt. The Hinchinbrook Property was sold on 22 November 2024 by the seventh defendant, Thyge Trafford Jones, who is the trustee of Mr Leon's bankrupt estate (Trustee). The net proceeds of sale were $363.830.62, being the sum which was paid into court on 7 April 2026.
The substantive proceedings involved a claim by the plaintiff, Alloys International Printer & Hardware Division Pty Ltd against six defendants being Print Management, Lumi Finance Pty Ltd (second defendant), Teofany Trunzo (third defendant), Bizcap AU Pty Ltd (fourth defendant), Finstro Securities Pty Ltd (fifth defendant) and Chamberlains Law Firm Pty Limited (sixth defendant). The Trustee was subsequently added to the proceedings as the seventh defendant.
The proceedings were brought by the filing of a summons on 29 July 2025. In the course of making timetabling orders in the proceedings, on 8 September 2025, Registrar Walton ordered that the defendants file and serve any cross-summons by 23 September 2025. Print Management was the only defendant who filed such a cross-summons.
None of the defendants claim or maintain a proprietary interest (or any interest) in the net sale proceeds other than Print Management Facilities and the Trustee in relation to his expenses. The position of each of the defendants is as follows:
the second, third and sixth defendants each filed a submitting appearance in the substantive proceedings;
the fourth defendant confirmed by e-mail dated 24 March 2025 that it would not press any interest in the Hinchinbrook Property given that there were insufficient funds; and
the fifth defendant, who did not take an active role in the proceedings, confirmed by e-mail dated 28 May 2026 that it neither consented to nor opposed the orders that were sought in the application and said it would abide by any order of the court.
The orders proposed by Print Management are to the effect that the funds presently in court be paid to the Trustee in the amount of $36,691.60 and the remainder (including any interest accrued) be paid equally to Print Management and Alloys International.
Those proposed orders reflect an agreed position between Print Management and Alloys International as contained in a settlement deed dated 23 February 2026 between them, in which they agreed to equally share the sale proceeds after the payment of the Trustee's expenses.
I have evidence before me of the Trustee's expenses and the agreement by Print Management and Alloys International to pay those expenses fully before sharing the balance of the proceeds presently in court.
The court has power under r 55.11 of the UCPR to make payments out of funds held in court at its direction. The power to make directions in relation to the payment of funds in court is unconfined: Reozone Pty Ltd v Rene Santoro & Ors [2018] NSWSC 650, Slattery J at [82], approved in Eldsure Pty Ltd v Sheridan Legal Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1616, Kunc J at [18].
The principles to be applied in determining whether a payment out should be made of funds held in court are relevantly stated in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v The Estate of the L**ate Mahmoud Slieman [2010] NSWSC 661 (CBA v Slieman), where Slattery J stated at [8]–[11]:
[8] An applicant under UCPR r 55.11 must establish three matters to justify an order for the payment of money out of Court. The first is to identify the person who is primarily entitled to any funds paid into Court and the basis of that entitlement. It is fundamental that the person be identified from the best evidence available, so that the Court can be sure that the person has been given appropriate notice of the application and can if necessary contest it.
[9] The second matter that needs to be proved by a claimant is that he or she is not merely an unsecured creditor against the person primarily entitled to the fund but is a person who has an [sic] beneficial interest in the very fund that has been paid into Court. The same evidence that demonstrates a person’s primary entitlement to the funds in Court often establishes this second matter.
[10] Thirdly, it is necessary for an applicant to identify the other potential claimants to the fund in Court and to prove that those persons were notified of its claim. Those persons may consent to the claim. Alternatively, the applicant may prove that those persons either do not have valid claims against the fund or that their claims do not have priority over the applicant’s claims.
[11] The Court requires strict proof as to who has the entitlement to the funds in Court. There is a heavy burden placed on a party seeking payment of money out of court under Trustee Act s 98 and UCPR r 55.11. It is necessary for that party not only to prove his or her entitlement to the funds but also to prove that all other potential claimants to the funds in Court have been properly notified. Otherwise there is a risk of incorrect payments being made.
I note that there is evidence that each of the entities or people who lodged a caveat on the title of the Hinchinbrook Property is a party to these proceedings, and each of those entities or persons engaged in the proceedings either by filing a submitting appearance, consenting to the orders sought in this application or confirming that they neither consented to nor opposed the orders sought in it.
In addition, there is evidence that there is no awareness of any other person who has asserted an interest in the Hinchinbrook Property. Accordingly, there are no competing claimants to the funds in court other than Print Management and Alloys International.
Other than Print Management and Alloys International, the only other person who might be entitled to the proceeds of the sale of the Hinchinbrook Property is the Trustee who has consented to the relief sought in this application. Accordingly, there appear to be only two parties who are asserting competing claims in relation to the funds paid into court, and those parties (being Print Management and Alloys International) have agreed between themselves that, after the payment of the Trustee's expenses, they will share the balance of those funds.
I am satisfied on the evidence that each of Print Management and Alloys International had competing priority interests in the funds paid into court. In respect of Print Management that proprietary interest arises pursuant to an operating lease agreement and in respect of Alloys International that proprietary interest arises pursuant to a deed of guarantee. I am also satisfied that the total of the amounts claimed by each of Print Management and Alloys International is well in excess of the funds that are held in court. The amount that is claimed by Print Management is $327,047.69 and the amount that is claimed by Alloys International is $220,996.65. I am satisfied that each of them is a secured creditor with a proprietary interest in the funds held in court.
The result is that by their settlement deed, the parties with competing priorities to the funds held in court have determined that they will share it. It is not necessary in the circumstances for the court to engage in the determination of a priority dispute between them in light of their agreement.
Accordingly, I am satisfied of the following matters:
the Trustee is entitled to payment of his expenses which Print Management and Alloys International have agreed to pay in full;
Print Management and Alloys International are the only parties presently asserting any proprietary entitlement to the balance of the funds in court and they are entitled to the full amount of that balance;
there are no other competing claimants to the benefit of the funds held in court; and
there is no other obstacle preventing payment out of the funds held in court as proposed in the application.
For the reasons set out above, I make the following orders:
Pursuant to r 55.11 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), order that the sum of $363,830.62 paid into court on 7 April 2026 by the seventh defendant pursuant to orders made by Williams J on 20 March 2026, be paid out as follows:
(a) first, the sum of $36,691.60 to the seventh defendant by way of payment to the trust account of Oakbridge Lawyers; and (b) secondly, the balance, together with any accretions or interest accruing on it, be distributed equally to the following:
(i) the plaintiff, by way of payment to the trust account of Results Legal; and (ii) the first defendant, by way of payment to the nominated bank account by electronic funds transfer to BSB XXX-XXX account number XXXXXX.
**********
Alloys International Printer & Hardware Division Pty Ltd
Print Management Facilities Australia Pty Ltd