Calabro, T. v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1988] FCA 247

Calabro, T. v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1988] FCA 247

The debtor's affidavit and submissions concerned subsequent assessments and discussions after 1984 and did not show any counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand relating to the judgment debt that could not have been brought in the County Court proceedings. The Court was therefore not satisfied of the alleged counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand, and the bankruptcy notice operated accordingly.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 1988
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Determination Whether the Debtor Satisfied the Court Under S 41(7) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 That He Had a Counter Claim, Set Off or Cross Demand in Response to a Bankruptcy Notice
Outcome
The Court was not satisfied that the debtor had a counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand that could not have been brought in the County Court proceedings; the act of bankruptcy was to be determined in accordance with the order made that day.
Legal Topics
['bankruptcy Notice' 'act of Bankruptcy' 'judgment Debt' 'counter Claim, Set Off or Cross Demand' 'deputy Commissioner of Taxation']
['bankruptcy' 'taxation'] ['bankruptcy Notice' 'act of Bankruptcy' 'judgment Debt' 'counter Claim, Set Off or Cross Demand' 'deputy Commissioner of Taxation']

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 / Determination Whether the Debtor Satisfied the Court Under S 41(7) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 That He Had a Counter Claim, Set Off or Cross Demand in Response to a Bankruptcy Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the debtor had a counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand equal to or exceeding the sum specified in the bankruptcy notice that he could not have set up in the County Court proceedings in which the judgment was obtained.' 'Whether the bankruptcy notice should take effect and an act of bankruptcy be determined.']

Ratio Decidendi

The debtor's affidavit and submissions concerned subsequent assessments and discussions after 1984 and did not show any counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand relating to the judgment debt that could not have been brought in the County Court proceedings. The Court was therefore not satisfied of the alleged counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand, and the bankruptcy notice operated accordingly.

Court Disposition

The Court was not satisfied that the debtor had a counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand that could not have been brought in the County Court proceedings; the act of bankruptcy was to be determined in accordance with the order made that day.

Orders

  • ['The act of bankruptcy, under the Bankruptcy Act, is to be determined in accordance with the order made today.']