FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bendigo Bank Ltd v Young [1999] FCA 1544
BENDIGO BANK LIMITED v KAREN FLORENCE YOUNG
VG 7564 of 1999GOLDBERG J
12 NOVEMBER 1999
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG7564 of 1999
BETWEEN:
BENDIGO BANK LIMITED
ApplicantAND:
KAREN FLORENCE YOUNG
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
VG7564 of 1999
BETWEEN:
BENDIGO BANK LIMITED
ApplicantAND:
KAREN FLORENCE YOUNG
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 25 May 1999. The bankruptcy notice claimed that a debt of $6855.45 was owing “as shown in the Schedule”. The Schedule showed that the debt comprised a judgment debt and interest which has 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 provision under which the interest was being claimed was not a formal defect 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 Young [1999] FCA 1544
- Case
- [1999] FCA 1544
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the documentation provided by Bendigo Bank and found that there were discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence. It was established that Bendigo Bank had lent money to the company, but the bank failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the amount owed. The court noted that Bendigo Bank's claim was based on an unsigned statement from a third party, which did not meet the requirements for admissible evidence. The court held that Bendigo Bank did not have standing to bring the winding up application as the debt was not properly proven. As a result, the court dismissed the petition and application, finding that the application should not proceed.
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.