Cirillo v Consolidated Press Property Pty Ltd (formerly known as Citicorp Australia Limited) [2007] FCA 139

Cirillo v Consolidated Press Property Pty Ltd (formerly known as Citicorp Australia Limited) [2007] FCA 139

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide evidence of a bona fide or effective counter-claim, set-off, or cross demand equal to or exceeding the judgment debt as required by s 41(7) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), and the applicant's challenge was essentially a collateral attack on a consent costs order which remained on foot.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['setting Aside Bankruptcy Notice' 'counter Claim or Set Off Under Bankruptcy Act' 'abuse of Process']
['bankruptcy'] ['setting Aside Bankruptcy Notice' 'counter Claim or Set Off Under Bankruptcy Act' 'abuse of Process']

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 / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant is entitled to have the bankruptcy notice set aside under s 41(7) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) on the basis of a counter-claim, set-off, or cross demand equal to or exceeding the judgment debt' 'Whether there is evidence of a bona fide counter-claim, set-off, or cross demand' 'Whether time to comply with the bankruptcy notice can be extended']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide evidence of a bona fide or effective counter-claim, set-off, or cross demand equal to or exceeding the judgment debt as required by s 41(7) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), and the applicant's challenge was essentially a collateral attack on a consent costs order which remained on foot.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application."]