FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BAILEY v MCH BUILDING PTY LTD | [2011] FMCA 124 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Application to set aside bankruptcy notice and for an extension of time for compliance – whether the applicant had a counter-claim, set off or cross demand of equal or greater value than the debt due to the creditor which could not have been set up in the proceedings resulting in that debt considered. |
| Bankruptcy Act 1966, ss.40, 41 Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Cth) Building and Construction Industries Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW), ss.9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 32 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss.40, 133 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s.459 Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), s.18B Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules |
| Applicant: | ROBERT BAILEY |
| Respondent: | MCH BUILDING PTY LTD |
| File Number: | SYG 2698 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Driver FM |
| Hearing dates: | 1 March & 1 April 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 24 June 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Mr McCooe McCooe, Raves and Poole |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Lynch |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Craddock Murray Neumann |
ORDERS
The application filed on 14 December 2010 is dismissed with costs.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2698 of 2010
| ROBERT BAILEY |
Applicant
And
| MCH BUILDING PTY LTD |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction and background
The applicant, Robert Bailey, seeks to set aside Bankruptcy Notice NN49995/2010 on the basis of s.40(1)(g) and s.41(5) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Bankruptcy Act”). The application also sought an extension of time for compliance with the Bankruptcy Notice, pursuant to ss.41(6A) and (7) of the Bankruptcy Act. A registrar extended time for compliance, pursuant to s.41(6A) until 21 December 2010. At that time I determined that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of the automatic…
Continue reading Bailey v MCH Building Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bailey v MCH Building Pty Ltd [2011] FMCA 124
- Case
- [2011] FMCA 124
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the contractual obligations and whether the defendant failed to meet the specified standards. Additionally, it assessed whether the defendant made any representations that were misleading or deceptive. The court considered the terms of the contract, the evidence presented by both parties, and the applicable legal principles. It was necessary to determine if the defendant's actions warranted a finding of misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.
The court found that while there were some deficiencies in the work completed by the defendant, these did not amount to a breach of contract. The court held that the representations made by the defendant did not meet the threshold for misleading and deceptive conduct. Consequently, the application for damages was dismissed. The court emphasised that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a breach of contract or misleading and deceptive conduct. The application was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application filed on 14 December 2010 is dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.