Haley, Thomas Murray v Pattison, Paul Pattison [1998] FCA 1182

Haley, Thomas Murray v Pattison, Paul Pattison [1998] FCA 1182

The bankruptcy notice was based on the respondent receiver's remuneration and expenses fixed by the Taxing Master of the Supreme Court after the applicant had an opportunity to be heard. The applicant's grounds were not sustained and, in any event, many would only reduce the amount claimed rather than show that no debt existed. The respondent acted personally as a receiver appointed by the Supreme Court and was not a corporation within the meaning of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The application to set aside the bankruptcy notice therefore failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice VN 968/98 / Hearing Before Judicial Registrar; Application Dismissed With Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.
Legal Topics
['bankruptcy Notice' 'receiver Remuneration and Expenses' 'whether Court Will Go Behind Judgment' 'trade Practices Act Applicability to Receiver']
['bankruptcy' 'insolvency' 'civil Procedure'] ['bankruptcy Notice' 'receiver Remuneration and Expenses' 'whether Court Will Go Behind Judgment' 'trade Practices Act Applicability to Receiver']

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

Application to Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice VN 968/98 / Hearing Before Judicial Registrar; Application Dismissed With Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Bankruptcy Notice VN 968/98 should be set aside.' "Whether the applicant's challenges to the receiver's remuneration and expenses displaced the debt fixed by the Supreme Court." 'Whether the respondent receiver was amenable to the Trade Practices Act 1974.' 'Whether allegations of lack of diligence or negligence by the receiver were established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The bankruptcy notice was based on the respondent receiver's remuneration and expenses fixed by the Taxing Master of the Supreme Court after the applicant had an opportunity to be heard. The applicant's grounds were not sustained and, in any event, many would only reduce the amount claimed rather than show that no debt existed. The respondent acted personally as a receiver appointed by the Supreme Court and was not a corporation within the meaning of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The application to set aside the bankruptcy notice therefore failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.

Orders

  • ['The application to set aside Bankruptcy Notice VN 968/98 is dismissed.' 'All aspects of the application encompassed by the document entitled "Defence and Counter Claim of Bankruptcy Notice VN 968/98" are dismissed.' 'The applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent in respect of the application as agreed or...