NEWS

Deceitful Debtors – Acting in Bad Faith

Protecting Creditors – Voiding Transactions using section 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)

Section 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) (“the Act”’) affords creditors reassurance by providing statutory protection against debtors who attempt to defeat or otherwise impede creditors by alienating their property. A key example of circumstances where a creditor may utilise this provision is the common scenario where individuals, who have had default judgment entered against them, attempt to alienate their property or assets in an effort to conceal or “protect” their property from creditors.

The purpose of the section was stipulated as being to ensure “the estate of the alienor available to meet the claims of creditors generally is restored to the state in which it would have existed but for the alienation”.1

Section 37A of the Act provides:

1           Save as provided in this section, every alienation of property, made whether before or after the commencement of the Conveyancing (Amendment) Act 1930, with intent to defraud creditors, shall be voidable at the instance of any person thereby prejudiced.

2           This section does not affect the law of bankruptcy for the time being in force.

3           This section does not extend to any estate or interest in property alienated to a purchaser in good faith not having, at the time of the alienation, notice of the intent to defraud creditors.

“Alienation” in the context of this section is to be interpreted as “the transfer of value from one person to another” and “property” encapsulates both personal and real property.2

Establishing the requisite “intention” to defraud creditors is not an onerous threshold for creditors to meet and is to be read “liberally” in the creditor’s favour and includes intention to “hinder or delay” creditors from acquiring the property in dispute.3

Additionally, the word “creditors” has been interpreted broadly, with the section affording protection to not only persons and entities to which debts are presently owed, but also to “future creditors”. Therefore, this section is able to be used by creditors that have an “impending debt” owed, not necessarily a current outstanding debt.4

The only potential issue creditors may encounter is the exclusion provision contained in section 37A(3). If a purchaser can establish the relevant transaction (which resulted in the alienation of the property sought by the creditor) was made in good faith, any aggrieved creditors will not be able to utilise the voiding provision contained in section 37A(1). With respect to section 37A(3), the onus of proof rests with the purchaser alleging the transaction was made in good faith. This party must be able to prove they entered into the transaction with the debtor in good faith, without any notice of the debtor’s intention to defraud creditors.5

Therefore, raising Section 37A as a cause of action against “fraudulent” debtors is a particularly appealing legal avenue for creditors due to the relatively low onus of proof that must be met to have the disputed property transaction voided in favour of the prejudiced creditor.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.


Agusta Pty Ltd v Provident Capital Ltd [2012] NSWCA 26.

Lakis v Laris [2017] NSWSC 321; Ord Forrest Pty Ltd v FCT (1974) 130 CLR 124.

Marcolongo v Chen [2011] HCA 3; (2011) 242 CLR 546.

B v U [2012] NSWSC 1416; Green v Schneller [2002] NSWSC 671.

B v U [2012] NSWSC 1416.

Related News

Doyles Guide Leading Class Action Lawyers, Australia 2026

William Roberts are proud to announce that  Bill Petrovski and Ding Pan have been selected as Leading Class Actions Lawyers – Australia, 2026. The 2026

Read More

Lessons from Bremner v French (No 6) [2026] NSWSC 826

Please, Your Honour, May I Have Some More (of my fees)? – Lessons from Bremner v French (No 6) [2026] NSWSC 826 Justice Parker’s decision

Read More

Zamagias v Saltalamacchia [2026] NSWCA 48: A Lesson on the Value of Contemporaneous Evidence

In a decision handed down by the New South Wales Court of Appeal on 2 April 2026, Justice Adamson with President Ward and Justice Free

Read More

Get in touch

Contact our team today

William Roberts Lawyers

Sydney

Level 22
66 Goulburn Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000

PO Box 20424, World Square NSW 2000

Melbourne

Level 7,

171 La Trobe Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000

 

PO Box 13171, Law Courts VIC 8010

Brisbane

Level 9
193 North Quay
BRISBANE QLD 4000

 

PO Box 12170, George Street QLD 4003

Singapore

Level 19
Singapore Land Tower
50 Raffles Place
SINGAPORE 048623