Driessen v Parkinson [2000] FCA 871

Driessen v Parkinson [2000] FCA 871

The non-stamping of the guarantee agreement is not of itself a conclusive defence to the applicants' claim; the judgment is accepted as proof of the debt owed by the respondent, and no sufficient reason exists to go behind the judgment given the history and prior inquiries into the merits.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Contested Creditor's Petition (bankruptcy) / Judgment and Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Sequestration order made; costs to be taxed and paid in accordance with Bankruptcy Act 1966.
Legal Topics
["creditor's Petition" 'default Judgment' "court's Discretion to Go Behind Judgment" 'admissibility of Unstamped Agreement' 'guarantee']

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

Contested Creditor's Petition (bankruptcy) / Judgment and Orders After Hearing

  1. 1 ['Whether the court should exercise discretion to go behind a default judgment to determine the existence of a true debt' 'Relevance and effect of the underlying guarantee agreement not being stamped']

Ratio Decidendi

The non-stamping of the guarantee agreement is not of itself a conclusive defence to the applicants' claim; the judgment is accepted as proof of the debt owed by the respondent, and no sufficient reason exists to go behind the judgment given the history and prior inquiries into the merits.

Court Disposition

Sequestration order made; costs to be taxed and paid in accordance with Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Orders

  • ['A sequestration order be made against the estate of David Parkinson.' "Costs of and incidental to the creditor's petition, including reserved costs, be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966."]