Re Eather, Rosemary; Ex Parte Eather, Rosemary v Palada, Carlos Ernesto [1996] FCA 129

Re Eather, Rosemary; Ex Parte Eather, Rosemary v Palada, Carlos Ernesto [1996] FCA 129

Applicant failed to establish she had a counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand as referred to in s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 because such claims had been resolved by orders of the Queensland Building Tribunal, a deed of compromise, and applicant's refusal to provide access discharged respondent's obligations under the deed.

Parties
Applicant: Rosemary Eather; Respondent: Carlos Ernesto Palada
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Application / Judgment and Orders on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Counter Claim, Set Off, Cross Demand, Acts of Bankruptcy
Bankruptcy Law Counter Claim Set Off Cross Demand Acts of Bankruptcy

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosemary Eather

Applicant

Carlos Ernesto Palada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Application / Judgment and Orders on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant has a counter-claim, set-off, or cross-demand as referred to in s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966
  2. 2 Whether bankruptcy notice should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to establish she had a counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand as referred to in s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 because such claims had been resolved by orders of the Queensland Building Tribunal, a deed of compromise, and applicant's refusal to provide access discharged respondent's obligations under the deed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application filed on 9 January 1996 is dismissed.
  • Applicant to pay respondent's costs of that application, to be taxed if not agreed.