Re Marshall, J.G. v. Ex parte James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd [1985] FCA 304

Re Marshall, J.G. v. Ex parte James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd [1985] FCA 304

The application to go behind the judgment must succeed as there are substantial reasons for questioning the validity of the debt; the District Court judgment was, on any view, incorrect, as judgment against both the individual and the company (or business name) cannot be right.

Parties
Judgment Debtor: John Grattan Marshall; Petitioning Creditor: James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd; Company: Marshall Irrigation Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 1985
Procedural Posture
Creditor's Petition / Application to Go Behind Judgment
Outcome
Application to go behind the judgment succeeds; the judgment debtor is entitled to an investigation of whether the debt exists.
Legal Topics
Going Behind Judgment, Default Judgment, Business Names Act (qld), Effect of Registration Under Business Names Act, Judgment Against Two Defendants
Bankruptcy Estoppel Practice and Procedure Going Behind Judgment Default Judgment Business Names Act (qld) Effect of Registration Under Business Names Act Judgment Against Two Defendants

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Grattan Marshall

Judgment Debtor

James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd

Petitioning Creditor

Marshall Irrigation Pty Ltd

Company

Procedural Posture

Creditor's Petition / Application to Go Behind Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court should go behind the default District Court judgment relied on by the petitioning creditor in a creditor's petition
  2. 2 Effect of registration under the Business Names Act (Qld) on who carried on business and is liable for the debt
  3. 3 Validity of a District Court judgment against two defendants when only one can be liable but not both

Ratio Decidendi

The application to go behind the judgment must succeed as there are substantial reasons for questioning the validity of the debt; the District Court judgment was, on any view, incorrect, as judgment against both the individual and the company (or business name) cannot be right.

Court Disposition

Application to go behind the judgment succeeds; the judgment debtor is entitled to an investigation of whether the debt exists.