Bendigo Bank Ltd v Williams - [1999] FCA 1546

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bendigo Bank Ltd v Williams [1999] FCA 1546
BANKRUPTCY – bankruptcy notice - omission of provision under which interest claimed –defect or irregularity – substantive or formal defect
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss41, 43, 306(1)
Bankruptcy Regulations reg 4.02
Bendigo Bank Limited v Scerri [1999] FCA 1215 followed
Ashdown v Kirk [1999] FCA 1263 not followed
Kleinwort Benson Australia Ltd v Crowl (1988) 165 CLR 71 distinguished
BENDIGO BANK LIMITED v GARY JOHN WILLIAMS
VG 7562 of 1999
GOLDBERG J
12 NOVEMBER 1999
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 7562 of 1999

BETWEEN:

BENDIGO BANK LIMITED
Applicant

AND:

GARY JOHN WILLIAMS
Respondent

JUDGE:

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 7562 of 1999

BETWEEN:

BENDIGO BANK LIMITED
Applicant

AND:

GARY JOHN WILLIAMS
Respondent

JUDGE:

GOLDBERG J

DATE:

12 NOVEMBER 1999

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 25 August 1999 Bendigo Bank Limited (“the applicant”) filed a Creditor’s Petition seeking a Sequestration Order under s 43 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”) against the estate of the respondent Gary John Williams. The act of bankruptcy relied upon in the Petition is the failure of the respondent to comply with a bankruptcy notice dated 9 April 1999 which was founded on a Judgment obtained in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne on 11 February 1999.
The Petition, which is not opposed, was returnable before a Registrar of the Court. The Registrar referred the Petition to a Judge because of the decisions in Bendigo Bank Limited v Scerri [1999] FCA 1215 and Ashdown v Kirk [1999] FCA 1263.
The issue for determination is whether the omission in a bankruptcy notice of the provision under which interest is claimed vitiates the notice or is a formal defect or irregularity for the purposes of s 306(1) of the Act.
The bankruptcy notice is in the form prescribed by reg 4.02 of the Bankruptcy Regulations. It states that the Petitioner claims the debtor owes a debt of $5,474.23 “as shown in the Schedule”. The notice requires the debtor within twenty-one days after service of the bankruptcy notice to pay to the creditor the amount of the debt or to make an arrangement to the creditor’s satisfaction for settlement of the debt.
The Schedule to the notice is in the following form:
“Schedule

1. Amount of judgement or order $4927.88

2. Legal costs if ordered to be paid and a specific amount was not included in the judgment or order (see Note 1, below) $

3. If claimed in this Bankruptcy Notice, interest accrued since the date of Judgment or order (see Note 3, below) $ $546.35

4. Subtotal $5474.23

5. Payments made since date…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bendigo Bank Ltd v Williams and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] FCA 1546
Decision Date: 12 NOVEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bendigo Bank Limited instituted proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against Mrs. Williams, seeking a declaration of insolvency and an order for winding-up due to alleged defaults in loan repayments. The dispute centred on whether Mrs. Williams' financial obligations to the bank constituted an event of default under the terms of their loan agreement, which could trigger the bank's right to declare insolvency and seek winding-up. The primary legal issue was the interpretation of the contractual terms defining the event of default and whether the bank's allegations of missed repayments were substantiated.

The court carefully examined the terms of the loan agreement and the evidence presented regarding the loan repayments. It assessed whether the bank's claims of missed repayments were accurate and whether these constituted a default under the agreement. The court found that the bank had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims of missed repayments. Consequently, the court held that there was no default under the agreement, and the bank's petition was dismissed.

The Supreme Court ruled that the bank's petition was without merit as it failed to provide adequate evidence to support the claim of default. The court dismissed the petition and ordered the bank to pay Mrs. Williams' costs. This decision underscored the importance of precise and substantiated claims in proceedings involving financial default and contractual obligations.

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

GOLDBERG J (dissent)

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 7562 of 1999

BETWEEN:	BENDIGO BANK LIMITED Applicant
AND:	GARY JOHN WILLIAMS Respondent
JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 NOVEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE:	12 NOVEMBER 1999
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

1.	Amount of judgement or order	$4927.88
2.	Legal costs if ordered to be paid and a specific amount was not included in the judgment or order (see Note 1, below) $
3.	If claimed in this Bankruptcy Notice, interest accrued since the date of Judgment or order (see Note 3, below) $	$546.35
4.	Subtotal	$5474.23
5.	Payments made since date…