Big Country Developments Pty Limited v Peter Griffiths (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 1791

Big Country Developments Pty Limited v Peter Griffiths (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 1791

The Court dismissed the application because it was not satisfied that payment by instalments would result in the judgment being satisfied within a reasonable period. Mr Duncan had resisted satisfying the judgment for about four years, only sought instalments after the bankruptcy petition hearing, and provided insufficient evidence that his business interests would generate funds needed to meet the proposed plan. The asserted public policy reasons did not answer the conclusion that he was unlikely to comply with the plan.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application Concerning Payment of Judgment Debt by Instalments / Hearing De Novo of Application to Set Aside Deputy Registrar's Refusal of Instalment Order
Outcome
The fourth defendant's notice of motion was dismissed, with costs payable to the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['payment of Judgment Debt by Instalments' 'section 107 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw)' 'part 37 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)' 'bankruptcy Petition as Enforcement Context']
['civil Procedure' 'judgment Enforcement'] ['payment of Judgment Debt by Instalments' 'section 107 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw)' 'part 37 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)' 'bankruptcy Petition as Enforcement Context']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure Application Concerning Payment of Judgment Debt by Instalments / Hearing De Novo of Application to Set Aside Deputy Registrar's Refusal of Instalment Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Deputy Registrar's refusal of the fourth defendant's application to pay the judgment debt by instalments should be set aside." 'Whether an instalment order would be more conducive to payment of the judgment debt in full within a reasonable time.' "Whether the fourth defendant's evidence showed an ability to comply with the proposed instalment plan." 'Whether asserted public policy reasons, including avoiding bankruptcy and continuing professional work, justified approving the instalment plan.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the application because it was not satisfied that payment by instalments would result in the judgment being satisfied within a reasonable period. Mr Duncan had resisted satisfying the judgment for about four years, only sought instalments after the bankruptcy petition hearing, and provided insufficient evidence that his business interests would generate funds needed to meet the proposed plan. The asserted public policy reasons did not answer the conclusion that he was unlikely to comply with the plan.

Court Disposition

The fourth defendant's notice of motion was dismissed, with costs payable to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ["The fourth defendant's notice of motion filed on 14 October 2019 be dismissed." "The fourth defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the notice of motion."]