Catalano, Joseph Michael v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1997] FCA 649

Catalano, Joseph Michael v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1997] FCA 649

The bankruptcy notice was not invalid for referring to the two interlocutory costs orders because those orders, made in the same Supreme Court action, were taxed together and channelled by Master Bruce's taxation order into one order for $5036.50. The applicant also failed to establish a prima facie counter-claim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding that amount; his asserted counter-claim was unsupported by facts or pleadings, and his costs entitlement under the 6 November 1996 order did not approach the amount of the notice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 1997
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside a Bankruptcy Notice / Final Determination of the Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['bankruptcy Notice' 'final Judgment or Final Order' 'costs Orders' 'taxation of Costs' 'counter Claim, Set Off or Cross Demand']
['bankruptcy'] ['bankruptcy Notice' 'final Judgment or Final Order' 'costs Orders' 'taxation of Costs' 'counter Claim, Set Off or Cross Demand']

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

Application to Set Aside a Bankruptcy Notice / Final Determination of the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the bankruptcy notice was invalid because it was based on more than one judgment or order.' 'Whether the applicant had a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount specified in the bankruptcy notice which he could not have set up in the proceeding in which the judgments or orders were obtained.']

Ratio Decidendi

The bankruptcy notice was not invalid for referring to the two interlocutory costs orders because those orders, made in the same Supreme Court action, were taxed together and channelled by Master Bruce's taxation order into one order for $5036.50. The applicant also failed to establish a prima facie counter-claim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding that amount; his asserted counter-claim was unsupported by facts or pleadings, and his costs entitlement under the 6 November 1996 order did not approach the amount of the notice.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's taxed costs of the application."]