Melbourne v Relativity Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 160

Melbourne v Relativity Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 160

The applicant failed to establish a bona fide counterclaim, set-off, or cross demand with reasonable prospects of success equal to or exceeding the judgment debt; breaches of agreements were not established, the trespass claim lacked sufficient evidence and bona fides, and other claims (including conspiracy) had little prospect of success. Thus, there was no basis to set aside the bankruptcy notice.

Parties
Applicant: Lance Melbourne; First Respondent: Relativity Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Mark Henry De Courcy Bingham
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Application to Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice, Counterclaim or Set Off Against Judgment Debt, Breach of Agreement, Trespass to Property, Joint Venture Obligations, Conspiracy, Quantification of Damages
Bankruptcy Application to Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice Counterclaim or Set Off Against Judgment Debt Breach of Agreement Trespass to Property Joint Venture Obligations Conspiracy Quantification of Damages

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 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lance Melbourne

Applicant

Relativity Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Mark Henry De Courcy Bingham

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a counter claim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt under Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 40(1)(g) & 41(7)
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of the 13 May 1993 agreement (failure to pay agreed amounts)
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of the 4 February 1994 agreement as varied on 16 December 1994 (failure to advance all agreed funds)

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a bona fide counterclaim, set-off, or cross demand with reasonable prospects of success equal to or exceeding the judgment debt; breaches of agreements were not established, the trespass claim lacked sufficient evidence and bona fides, and other claims (including conspiracy) had little prospect of success. Thus, there was no basis to set aside the bankruptcy notice.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondents' costs.