Vines (Trustee), in the matter of the Bankrupt Estate of Mitchell v The Edge TC Pty Ltd

Vines (Trustee), in the matter of the Bankrupt Estate of Mitchell v The Edge TC Pty Ltd (No 5) [2026] FCA 4 (14 January 2026)

Last Updated: 14 January 2026

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Vines (Trustee), in the matter of the Bankrupt Estate of Mitchell v The Edge TC Pty Ltd (No 5) [2026] FCA 4

File number:

WAD 316 of 2024

Judgment of:

JACKSON J

Date of judgment:

14 January 2026

Catchwords:

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY - application by interim receivers for a direction that they would be justified in settling certain proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland - opposition to the directions sought by interested parties - application dismissed

ESTOPPEL - Anshun estoppel - consideration of whether discontinuing proceedings in Supreme Court of Queensland will preclude the bringing of potential claims in the future - applicability of Anshun estoppel where proceeding discontinued - onus on the interim receivers to satisfy the Court concerning risk of the potential claims being compromised by the proposed settlement - risk that potential claims barred by reason of Anshun estoppel

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) Sch 2 (Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy))

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 420

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Cases cited:

ASIC v Commercial Nominees [2002] NSWSC 576

Conference & Exhibition Organisers Pty Ltd v Johnson [2016] NSWCA 118

DA Christie Pty Ltd v Baker [1996] VicRp 89; [1996] 2 VR 582

Ekes v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] NSWCA 336

Francis (Trustee), in the matter of Fotios (Bankrupt) v Helios Corporation Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 199

Henderson v Henderson [1843] EngR 917; (1843) 67 ER 313

Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) [2002] AC 1

Kelly (Liquidator), in the matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Loo (No 2) [2022] FCA 1078

Kurzyp v Kurzyp [2021] NSWSC 851

Livingstone v Mitchell [2020] NSWSC 1464

Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc v His Eminence Petar the Diocesan Bishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Church of Australia and New Zealand [2006] NSWCA 160; (2006) 66 NSWLR 112

Madden (Receiver) v Mining Standards International Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 142

Mandeville v Better Lending Pty Ltd [2021] SASCA 28; (2021) 139 SASR 1

OPS Screening & Crushing Equipment Pty Ltd v Gold Valley Iron Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No 2) [2023] WASC 109

Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia [1998] HCA 30; (1998) 195 CLR 1

Preston, in the matter of Sandalwood Properties Ltd [2018] FCA 547

Probert v The Estate of the Late Amiel Colin Christie (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 1041

R&J Lyons Family Settlement Pty Ltd v 155 Macquarie Street Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 232

Re Ansett Australia Ltd (No 3) [2002] FCA 90; (2002) 115 FCR 409

Re Mirabela Nickel Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq); Ex Parte Madden [2018] WASC 335

Re One.tel Ltd [2014] NSWSC 457

Re Rosewood Research Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 449

Rojanasaroj v Rachan (No 2) [2011] WASC 271

Running Pigmy Productions Pty Ltd v AMP General Insurance Co Ltd [2001] NSWSC 431

Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 28; (2015) 256 CLR 507

Vines, in the matter of the Bankrupt Estate of Mitchell [2024] FCA 1276

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd (formerly Contour Aerospace Ltd) [2013] UKSC 46; [2014] AC 160

Ward v Hutt [2018] EWHC 77 (Ch); [2018] 1 WLR 1789

Whelan Kartaway Pty Ltd v Donnelly [2012] VSC 45

Division:

General Division

Registry:

Western Australia

National Practice Area:

Commercial and Corporations

Sub-area:

General and Personal Insolvency

Number of paragraphs:

89

Date of hearing:

23 September 2025 and 12 December 2025

Counsel for the Interim Receivers:

Mr S Tomasich

Solicitors for the Interim Receivers:

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

Counsel for the Fourteenth, Seventeenth and Twentieth Respondents (as the Interested Respondents):

Mr N Lucarelli KC with Mr J Paterson

Solicitor for the Fourteenth, Seventeenth and Twentieth Respondents (as the Interested Respondents):

Matthews Folbigg Solicitors (until 17 November 2025)

Forbes Kirby (from 18 November 2025)

Counsel for the Thirteenth Respondent:

The Thirteenth Respondent filed a submitting notice, save as to costs

ORDERS

WAD 316 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF SAM ALEXANDER MITCHELL

BETWEEN:

MATTHEW DANIEL VINES IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF SAM ALEXANDER MITCHELL

First Applicant

JOHN GERVESE SHANAHAN IN HIS CAPACITY AS JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF SAM ALEXANDER MITCHELL

Second Applicant

AND:

THE EDGE TC PTY LTD (ACN 145 089 069)

First Respondent

WEALTHCHECK FINANCE PTY LTD (ACN 115 379 194)

Second Respondent

THE EDGE FARMING PTY LTD (ACN 628 137 646) (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

AND:

BRENT KIJURINA

First Interim Receiver

RICHARD ALBARRAN

Second Interim Receiver

ORDER MADE BY:

JACKSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 JANUARY 2026

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Paragraph 1 of the interim receivers' amended interlocutory application filed on 1 August 2025 is dismissed.
2. The Court confirms that the interim receivers' remuneration and costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application form part of the remuneration and expenses referred to at paragraph 8 of the orders made on 25 October 2024.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JACKSON J:

1. On 25 October 2024, on an urgent basis, Feutrill J of this Court appointed Richard Albarran and Brent Kijurina of Hall Chadwick to be interim joint and several receivers (Receivers) of the property of various companies and trusts associated with Sam Mitchell, who is an undischarged bankrupt. Among the assets to which the Receivers were appointed were the assets of the first respondent, The Edge TC Pty Ltd (TETC) and of the second respondent, Wealthcheck Finance Pty Ltd (WFP). There is reason to believe that TETC acts as trustee of the Edge Family Trust (TEFT); although that is potentially an issue in the proceeding as a whole, I will assume for the purposes of this application that it is so. On 15 November 2024, Feutrill J confirmed that the Receivers were appointed as interim receivers of the assets of TEFT.
2. The Receivers now seek a direction from the Court that they would be justified in settling a particular proceeding in the Supreme Court of Queensland (Queensland Proceeding) on terms that they are paid $190,680.59 with no order as to costs.
3. Certain other respondents submit that the direction sought should not be made. They are the fourteenth respondent, Andrea Miller, the seventeenth respondent, Robin Mitchell, and the twentieth respondent, Wendy Mitchell. Andrea Miller is Sam Mitchell's wife, Robin Mitchell is his father and Wendy Mitchell is his mother. These three are the only active respondents who have filed a notice of address for service in the proceeding; I will call them the Interested Respondents. They are all represented by the same law firm and counsel. The Interested Respondents claim, and the Receivers do not dispute, that they have an interest in the outcome by reason of their positions as beneficiaries of TEFT. At the time of two hearings on the matter, the thirteenth respondent, John Thomson, also claimed to be interested in the outcome of the Receivers' application, but he has since filed a submitting notice (save as to costs).
4. For the following reasons, I decline to make a direction as sought.

Background

1. The appointment of the Receivers as interim receivers of the assets of TETC, TEFT and WFP, among other entities, was made on the application of Matthew Vines, who at the time was Sam Mitchell's sole trustee in bankruptcy. Mr Vines raised concerns that assets of entities in which the bankrupt estate may have had an interest were in jeopardy. The appointments were made under certain provisions of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy) (being Sch 2 to the Bankruptcy Act), and the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
2. In broad terms, the purpose of the appointment was to protect the relevant assets for the benefit of the bankrupt estate. Under the orders made on 25 October 2024, the Receivers were appointed 'for the purpose of identification, preservation and securing' of the relevant property 'in aid of the Trustee and for the ultimate benefit of creditors of the estate of the Bankrupt'.
3. While the Receivers were not appointed under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), for convenience the Court's orders conferred specific powers by reference to certain sub‑paragraphs of s 420 of that Act, and the powers given to receivers and managers appointed under the Act. The Receivers thus have power, among other things, to 'bring or defend any proceedings or do any other act or thing in the name of and on behalf of the corporation' (Cf. s 420(2)(k)). However, they were not given any express power to compromise proceedings, or more broadly to dispose of assets, and the orders make it clear that their powers do not extend to the sale of any relevant property without the prior leave of the Court.
4. About two months before the initial appointment of the Receivers in October 2024, WFP had commenced the Queensland Proceeding against O'Shea and Partners Lawyers Pty Ltd (O'Shea Partners) and O'Shea and Associates Services Pty Ltd (O'Shea Services, together, O'Shea). The statement of claim is brief and simple. Essentially, WFP claims to be entitled to be paid a sum of $381,361.19 which O'Shea Partners holds in trust for it. WFP claims that on 10 July 2024, it directed O'Shea Partners to disburse the trust funds to it. It seeks a declaration that O'Shea Partners does not have a statutory or equitable lien over the funds. It also claims interest and costs.
5. O'Shea filed a defence, as well as a counterclaim against TETC in its capacity as trustee for the TEFT, which thereby became a party. The defence is brief and simple too, but the counterclaim is not. (In many, but not

This is an opening excerpt, not the complete document.