Re Robert John Laybutt & Anor Ex Parte George Robinson & Anor [1985] FCA 268

Re Robert John Laybutt & Anor Ex Parte George Robinson & Anor [1985] FCA 268

The application was refused because the judgment debtors did not provide admissible and sufficient affidavit material identifying a bona fide counter-claim or its legal and factual basis, did not explain why any such claim could not have been set up in the Supreme Court proceedings, and the material suggested the cross-claim had in fact been launched in that Court but dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 1985
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Application to Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice / Federal Court Application Before Beaumont J
Outcome
Application to set aside the bankruptcy notice refused; time for compliance extended; costs ordered against the judgment debtors.
Legal Topics
['bankruptcy Notice' 'counter Claim, Set Off or Cross Demand' 'affidavit Evidence' 'bona Fide Counter Claim' 'extension of Time for Compliance']
['bankruptcy' 'insolvency' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['bankruptcy Notice' 'counter Claim, Set Off or Cross Demand' 'affidavit Evidence' 'bona Fide Counter Claim' 'extension of Time for Compliance']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Application to Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice / Federal Court Application Before Beaumont J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judgment debtors had a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the bankruptcy notice amount that could not have been set up in the Supreme Court proceedings in which judgment was obtained.' "Whether the judgment debtors' affidavits complied with s.41(7) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1966 and r.10 of the Bankruptcy Rules." 'Whether the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice should be refused and time for compliance extended.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the judgment debtors did not provide admissible and sufficient affidavit material identifying a bona fide counter-claim or its legal and factual basis, did not explain why any such claim could not have been set up in the Supreme Court proceedings, and the material suggested the cross-claim had in fact been launched in that Court but dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the bankruptcy notice refused; time for compliance extended; costs ordered against the judgment debtors.

Orders

  • ['Order that the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice be refused.' 'Order that the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice be extended up to and including 10 July 1985.' 'Order that the judgment debtors pay the costs of the judgment creditors of this application.']