Re Hunter, L. v Ex parte Webb, L.M. [1995] FCA 453

Re Hunter, L. v Ex parte Webb, L.M. [1995] FCA 453

The debtor's affidavit contained only scattered assertions without a logical foundation and did not provide particulars of a counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand. It therefore did not constitute a bona fide reliance on s.41(7), and the Deputy Registrar was obliged to endorse the application as insufficient under sub-r.10(5). The application for review was dismissed, but the deemed extension of time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice continued until the Court's determination and was directed to expire at 4.00 p.m. on the day of judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Application to Review an Act Done by a Deputy Registrar Under S.14(5) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth) and R.10 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1968 (cth) / Reasons for Judgment and Orders on Review Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['bankruptcy Notice' 'counter Claim, Set Off or Cross Demand' "review of Deputy Registrar's Act" 'deemed Extension of Time for Compliance With Bankruptcy Notice']
['bankruptcy'] ['bankruptcy Notice' 'counter Claim, Set Off or Cross Demand' "review of Deputy Registrar's Act" 'deemed Extension of Time for Compliance With Bankruptcy Notice']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Application to Review an Act Done by a Deputy Registrar Under S.14(5) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth) and R.10 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1968 (cth) / Reasons for Judgment and Orders on Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the affidavit or application filed by the debtor raised and gave sufficient particulars of a counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand for the purposes of r.10 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1968 (Cth) and s.41(7) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).' "What form of review the Court should conduct under s.14(5) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) of a Deputy Registrar's endorsement under sub-r.10(5)." "Whether the Deputy Registrar's endorsement that the application was insufficient ended the deemed extension of time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice under s.41(7)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The debtor's affidavit contained only scattered assertions without a logical foundation and did not provide particulars of a counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand. It therefore did not constitute a bona fide reliance on s.41(7), and the Deputy Registrar was obliged to endorse the application as insufficient under sub-r.10(5). The application for review was dismissed, but the deemed extension of time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice continued until the Court's determination and was directed to expire at 4.00 p.m. on the day of judgment.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'The time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice expires at 4.00 p.m. today.']