Bendigo Bank Ltd v Young

Case [1999] FCA 1544


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bendigo Bank Ltd v Young [1999] FCA 1544

BENDIGO BANK LIMITED v KAREN FLORENCE YOUNG
VG 7564 of 1999

GOLDBERG J
12 NOVEMBER 1999
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG7564 of 1999

BETWEEN:

BENDIGO BANK LIMITED
Applicant

AND:

KAREN FLORENCE YOUNG
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

VG7564 of 1999

BETWEEN:

BENDIGO BANK LIMITED
Applicant

AND:

KAREN FLORENCE YOUNG
Respondent

JUDGE:

GOLDBERG J

DATE:

12 NOVEMBER 1999

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. 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. 

  2. 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. 

  3. 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
Details
AGLC
Bendigo Bank Ltd v Young [1999] FCA 1544
Case
[1999] FCA 1544
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bendigo Bank Ltd brought an application against Young for the winding up of a company, alleging unpaid debts. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether Bendigo Bank had standing to seek the winding up of the company and whether the company owed Bendigo Bank the alleged debt. The court also needed to determine if there were any grounds to dismiss the application.

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

GOLDBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GOLDBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.