Horvath, Gabor & Anor v Pattison, Paul A (Trustee) [1998] FCA 1443

Horvath, Gabor & Anor v Pattison, Paul A (Trustee) [1998] FCA 1443

Leave to proceed was refused because the applications, as formulated, were clearly foredoomed to fail and raised no serious question to be tried: they sought forms of relief outside s 99, attempted to re-agitate fraud allegations and challenges to the judgment debt that had repeatedly been rejected, and provided sparse, non-particularised material identifying no error by the trustee or basis for interfering with admission of the Bank's proof of debt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Applications by Bankrupts Under S 99(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 Challenging the Trustee's Decision to Admit the Commonwealth Bank of Australia's Proof of Debt / Application for Leave to Proceed After Directions That the Applications Not Be Accepted for Filing Without Leave of the Court
Outcome
Leave to proceed with each application refused; applicants ordered to pay the respondent's costs on a solicitor-client basis.
Legal Topics
['proof of Debt' "trustee's Decision" 'sequestration Orders' 'going Behind Judgment Debt' 'abuse of Process' 'leave to File or Proceed' 'solicitor Client Costs']
['bankruptcy and Insolvency' 'civil Procedure'] ['proof of Debt' "trustee's Decision" 'sequestration Orders' 'going Behind Judgment Debt' 'abuse of Process' 'leave to File or Proceed' 'solicitor Client Costs']

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

Applications by Bankrupts Under S 99(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 Challenging the Trustee's Decision to Admit the Commonwealth Bank of Australia's Proof of Debt / Application for Leave to Proceed After Directions That the Applications Not Be Accepted for Filing Without Leave of the Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to proceed with the applicants' s 99 applications challenging the trustee's admission of the Bank's proof of debt." 'Whether the applications were an abuse of process or clearly foredoomed to fail because they sought to relitigate matters repeatedly determined adversely to the applicants.' 'Whether the relief sought, including annulment of bankruptcy and damages, was available under s 99 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.' 'Whether any material identified error by the trustee or justified going behind the default judgment debt.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to proceed was refused because the applications, as formulated, were clearly foredoomed to fail and raised no serious question to be tried: they sought forms of relief outside s 99, attempted to re-agitate fraud allegations and challenges to the judgment debt that had repeatedly been rejected, and provided sparse, non-particularised material identifying no error by the trustee or basis for interfering with admission of the Bank's proof of debt.

Court Disposition

Leave to proceed with each application refused; applicants ordered to pay the respondent's costs on a solicitor-client basis.

Orders

  • ['In relation to each application before the court, leave to proceed upon that application be refused.' "That the applicants pay the respondent's costs of these applications, such costs to be assessed upon a solicitor-client basis."]