Coomber v Butler [2019] FCA 1674

Coomber v Butler [2019] FCA 1674

The applicants failed to establish a prima facie counter-claim of sufficient merit to warrant setting aside the bankruptcy notice because their previous NCAT proceedings were dismissed or withdrawn, the fresh NCAT application was not accepted for filing and lacked evident strength, the valuation evidence was...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
First Applicant: Ronald George Coomber; Second Applicant: Wendy Gai Coomber; Respondent: Julie Anne Butler
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Review of Registrar's Decision in Bankruptcy Proceedings / Final Judgment on Review
Outcome
Application for review dismissed, with costs.
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Notice, Registrar Review, Counter Claim, Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice
Bankruptcy Insolvency Bankruptcy Notice Registrar Review Counter Claim Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald George Coomber

First Applicant

Wendy Gai Coomber

Second Applicant

Julie Anne Butler

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review of Registrar's Decision in Bankruptcy Proceedings / Final Judgment on Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have an offsetting claim or counter-claim of sufficient merit to warrant setting aside the bankruptcy notice under s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether new NCAT proceedings constitute an effective counter-claim for purposes of s 40(1)(g)
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' valuation evidence is admissible and has sufficient probative value

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish a prima facie counter-claim of sufficient merit to warrant setting aside the bankruptcy notice because their previous NCAT proceedings were dismissed or withdrawn, the fresh NCAT application was not accepted for filing and lacked evident strength, the valuation evidence was inadmissible or unreliable, and the requirements of s 40(1)(g) that the offsetting claim be effective at the time of application were not met.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed, with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review dated 21 May 2019 be dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the respondent's costs, as agreed or taxed.