The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action, which sought to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance, on three grounds: lack of standing, the claim being statute-barred, and lack of legal capacity.
The court granted the motion, dismissing the action.
The primary reason for dismissal was the plaintiffs' lack of standing under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, as they were not "creditors or others" at the time of the impugned transfer in 1993.
Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to obtain proper court approval under section 38(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to commence proceedings against the non-bankrupt transferee.
The court disagreed that the claim was barred by the Real Property Limitations Act, finding that an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance is not an action to "recover land."