17 In further support of the submission that the Court had power to entertain the relief claimed by the plaintiff in this action, notwithstanding that no claim was being made by the liquidator of Rosemist Holdings Pty Ltd, counsel relied on a decision of Barrett J in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Green v Schneller [2002] NSWSC 671, 31 July 2002. In that case an application was made to set aside, as a fraudulent preference, the transfer of a property by the respondent, Mrs Schneller, because of an apparent intention to defeat a judgment creditor at a time when, after the transaction but before action brought, Mrs Schneller had gone bankrupt. Reliance by the applicant was placed on s 37A of the Conveyancing Act (NSW), the analogue in that state of s 89(1) of the Property Law Act (WA). The action proceeded to trial in the absence of the official receiver as a representative of Mrs Schneller, although I note that leave had been granted under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act for the plaintiff to proceed with the action against the bankrupt notwithstanding the bankruptcy. After trial Barrett J concluded that there had been a transaction which was fraudulent in the sense that it was designed to defeat the interests of creditors, and in particular the applicant, and his Honour was disposed to make a declaration to that effect but the actual orders which his Honour made were, it seems, limited.