Eastick, Robert Frank v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1981] FCA 77

Eastick, Robert Frank v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1981] FCA 77

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not establish a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand of the kind or amount required by s.40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1966. The Full Court found that Lockhart J. was correct in finding that no substantial or credible claim existed and that most alleged claims could have been raised previously, except for the alleged negligence claim, which, even if sufficiently stated to extend time for compliance, ultimately failed on the facts.

Parties
Appellant (judgment Debtor): Robert Frank Eastick; Respondent (judgment Creditor): Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 1981
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From a Single Judge to the Full Federal Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Counter Claim, Set Off, Cross Demand, Bankruptcy Notice Compliance, Affidavit Requirements
Bankruptcy Counter Claim Set Off Cross Demand Bankruptcy Notice Compliance Affidavit Requirements

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Frank Eastick

Appellant (judgment Debtor)

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

Respondent (judgment Creditor)

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From a Single Judge to the Full Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt pursuant to s.40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1966
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit filed was sufficient under s.41(7) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1966 to extend time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice
  3. 3 Whether the alleged claims were of the kind that could not have been set up in the original Supreme Court proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not establish a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand of the kind or amount required by s.40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1966. The Full Court found that Lockhart J. was correct in finding that no substantial or credible claim existed and that most alleged claims could have been raised previously, except for the alleged negligence claim, which, even if sufficiently stated to extend time for compliance, ultimately failed on the facts.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.