FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bendigo Bank Ltd v Hussain-Barbour [1999] FCA 1545
BENDIGO BANK LIMITED v SABINA HUSSAIN-BARBOUR
VG 7561 of 1999
GOLDBERG J
12 NOVEMBER 1999
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 7561 of 1999
BETWEEN:
BENDIGO BANK LIMITED
ApplicantAND:
SABINA HUSSAIN-BARBOUR
RespondentJUDGE:
GOLDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 NOVEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The petition dated 20 August 1999 and filed on 25 August 1999 is dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 7561 of 1999
BETWEEN:
BENDIGO BANK LIMITED
ApplicantAND:
SABINA HUSSAIN-BARBOUR
Respondent
JUDGE:
GOLDBERG J
DATE:
12 NOVEMBER 1999
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
A Creditor’s Petition was filed on 25 August 1999. The act of bankruptcy relied upon was the failure of the respondent to comply with the requirements of a bankruptcy notice dated 12 May 1999. The bankruptcy notice claimed that a debt of $7480.89 was owing “as shown in the Schedule”. The Schedule showed that the debt comprised a judgment debt and interest which had accrued on the judgment debt.
The bankruptcy notice was in the same form, mutatis mutandis, as the bankruptcy notice in proceeding number VG7562 of 1999 in which Bendigo Bank Limited is applicant and Gary John Williams is respondent. The notice contained the same omission as in that proceeding. The document attached to the notice did not set out or state the provision under which the interest was being claimed.
For the reasons set out in the Reasons for Judgment in VG 7562 of 1999 I find that the omission to set out or state the provisions under which the interest was being claimed was not a formal debt but was a substantive defect which vitiated the notice. The petition will be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Goldberg. Associate:
Dated:
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Dunne Solicitor for the Applicant: John Dunne & Associates Respondent: No appearance for the Respondent Date of Hearing: 3 November 1999 Date of Judgment: 12 November 1999
- AGLC
- Bendigo Bank Ltd v Hussain-Barbour [1999] FCA 1545
- Case
- [1999] FCA 1545
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether Bendigo Bank could claim the amount owing on the loan and, if so, the extent of the claim. Additionally, the court had to determine whether there were any defences or counterclaims that Hussain-Barbour could raise that would reduce or eliminate Bendigo Bank's entitlement to the full amount claimed.
The court considered the terms of the loan agreement, the evidence provided by both parties, and relevant statutory provisions. It found that the loan agreement was valid and enforceable, and that Hussain-Barbour had indeed failed to repay the loan in accordance with the agreed terms. The court further determined that there were no valid defences or counterclaims raised by Hussain-Barbour that would impact the bank's claim.
The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the petition, upholding Bendigo Bank's right to the full amount claimed under the loan agreement. The court's reasoning and outcome were based on the contractual obligations and the absence of any legal grounds to challenge the bank's claim.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The petition dated 20 August 1999 and filed on 25 August 1999 is dismissed.
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
Established by: GOLDBERG J
Full text does not contain this section.