Putnin, Bernard v Reynolds, Dennis John & anor [1984] FCA 255

Putnin, Bernard v Reynolds, Dennis John & anor [1984] FCA 255

The decision to commit the applicants for trial did not involve error of law; there was sufficient evidence before the magistrate upon which a reasonable jury, properly directed, might convict the applicants of conspiracy to defraud as charged. The applicants had not demonstrated that the magistrate's decision lacked a legal foundation or was unsupported on the evidence.

Parties
Applicant: Bernard Putnin; Applicant: Joseph Levit; Applicant: Meyer Martin Levit; First Respondent: Denis John Reynolds; Second Respondent: Peter Francis White
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 1984
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Review of Decision to Commit for Trial
Outcome
applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Committal Proceedings, Conspiracy to Defraud, Trustee Duties Under Deed of Arrangement, Part X Bankruptcy Act, Variation of Scheme or Amendment of Deed
Administrative Law Bankruptcy Law Criminal Law Judicial Review of Committal Proceedings Conspiracy to Defraud Trustee Duties Under Deed of Arrangement Part X Bankruptcy Act Variation of Scheme or Amendment of Deed

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard Putnin

Applicant

Joseph Levit

Applicant

Meyer Martin Levit

Applicant

Denis John Reynolds

First Respondent

Peter Francis White

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Review of Decision to Commit for Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision of the magistrate to commit the applicants for trial involved error of law
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence for a prima facie case of conspiracy to defraud against the applicants
  3. 3 Duty of trustee under Part X of Bankruptcy Act to get in and realise assets

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to commit the applicants for trial did not involve error of law; there was sufficient evidence before the magistrate upon which a reasonable jury, properly directed, might convict the applicants of conspiracy to defraud as charged. The applicants had not demonstrated that the magistrate's decision lacked a legal foundation or was unsupported on the evidence.

Court Disposition

applications dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application to be taxed as one set of costs with the costs in related applications.