Proud v Arkell [2019] NTSC 35 — BarristerAI

Proud v Arkell

[2019] NTSC 35

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory21 May 2019

View on AustLII View on JADE Download

Judges

Grant CJ

Headnote

No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.

Generate the headnote

Free trial · no card required

Case Details

Citation[2019] NTSC 35

CourtNTSC

JurisdictionNt

Decision Date21 May 2019

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Start free trial

No card · cancel anytime

Judgment

Judges

Grant CJ

Subsequent Judicial Consideration1›

Cases that have considered Proud v Arkell

Referred to (1)

K & J Burns Electrical Pty Ltd & Anor v Melanie Timms & Anor [2026] NTSC 33

Judicial Consideration (Chronological)

K & J Burns Electrical Pty Ltd & Anor v Melanie Timms & Anor [2026] NTSC 33Referred to

On an application to set aside a statutory demand under section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Wallaroo-Yorke rule for statutory demands requires the applicant to identify with specificity the offsetting claim relied upon, supported by evidence sufficient to demonstrate a genuine triable issue

On an application to set aside a statutory demand under section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Wallaroo-Yorke rule for statutory demands requires the applicant to identify with specificity the offsetting claim relied upon, supported by evidence sufficient to demonstrate a genuine triable issue.

Proud v Arkell at [30]

An equitable charge over commingled trust funds may be enforced under the Vermilion Quay principle of equitable charge where the trustee has dealt with the funds in breach of fiduciary duty and a sufficient proportion of the original res remains identifiable in the resulting account

An equitable charge over commingled trust funds may be enforced under the Vermilion Quay principle of equitable charge where the trustee has dealt with the funds in breach of fiduciary duty and a sufficient proportion of the original res remains identifiable in the resulting account.

Proud v Arkell at [37]

Judges

Headnote

Case Details

Built by Barristers,For Australian Law.

Judgment

Subsequent Judicial Consideration1›

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.