Empato Sheet Metal Products Pty Ltd (in liq) v Page, Ronald Phillip [1998] FCA 502

Empato Sheet Metal Products Pty Ltd (in liq) v Page, Ronald Phillip [1998] FCA 502

There was no substantial reason for questioning whether behind the Supreme Court judgment there was a real debt: the respondent debtor's own material acknowledged that more than $60,000 was owing in respect of the counts for which judgment was obtained, the affidavits concerning repayments did not negate that outstanding balance, and the summary judgment material before the Master pointed to a powerful case after a hearing at which the debtor was represented by counsel.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 1998
Procedural Posture
Creditor's Petition Relying on an Act of Bankruptcy Under S 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 / Threshold Issue Whether the Court Should Go Behind the Supreme Court of New South Wales Judgment
Outcome
The Court declined to exercise its discretion to go behind the Supreme Court judgment.
Legal Topics
["creditor's Petition" 'act of Bankruptcy' 'bankruptcy Notice' 'going Behind Judgment' 'summary Judgment' 'real Debt']
['bankruptcy' 'insolvency' 'civil Procedure'] ["creditor's Petition" 'act of Bankruptcy' 'bankruptcy Notice' 'going Behind Judgment' 'summary Judgment' 'real Debt']

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

Creditor's Petition Relying on an Act of Bankruptcy Under S 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 / Threshold Issue Whether the Court Should Go Behind the Supreme Court of New South Wales Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should go behind the Supreme Court of New South Wales judgment and hold that it was not founded on a real debt.' 'Whether substantial reason was shown for questioning whether behind the judgment there was in truth and reality a debt due to the applicant creditor.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no substantial reason for questioning whether behind the Supreme Court judgment there was a real debt: the respondent debtor's own material acknowledged that more than $60,000 was owing in respect of the counts for which judgment was obtained, the affidavits concerning repayments did not negate that outstanding balance, and the summary judgment material before the Master pointed to a powerful case after a hearing at which the debtor was represented by counsel.

Court Disposition

The Court declined to exercise its discretion to go behind the Supreme Court judgment.

Orders

  • []