Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 57 min read

Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd [2002] FCAFC 51

Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd [2002] FCA 223

NOTE: CHANGES TO THE MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION (MNC)

The Federal Court adopted a new medium neutral citation (FCAFC) for Full Court judgments effective from 1 January 2002.  Single Judge judgments will not be affected and will retain the FCA medium neutral citation.

The transitional arrangements are as follows:

  • All Full Court judgments delivered prior to 1 January 2002 will retain the FCA medium neutral citation.
  • All Full Court judgments delivered between 1 January 2002 to 30 April 2002 have been assigned parallel medium neutral citations in both the FCA and FCAFC series. 
  • All Full Court judgments delivered from 1 May 2002 will contain the FCAFC medium neutral citation only.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd [2002] FCA 223

BANKRUPTCY – application to set aside Bankruptcy Notice – trial judge refused to set aside Bankruptcy Notice – whether the trial judge erred in mistaking certain facts in his judgment – alleged denial of natural justice – whether lack of legal representation amounts to a ground of appeal – alleged failure to consider the applicant’s alleged counter-claim, set-off or cross demand filed in separate proceedings – extension of the time for compliance with Bankruptcy Notices – setting aside judgments based on fraud – principles of fraud discussed.

INDEMNITY COSTS – principles of indemnity costs discussed.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43(2)
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 40(1)(g), 41(6A), 41(7)

Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534 referred to
In re A Debtor [1958] 1 Ch. 81 cited
Re Cox (1934) 7 ABC 98 cited
Vogwell v Vogwell (1939) 11 ABC 83 cited
Guss v Johnstone (2000) 171 ALR 598 cited
In re Foster, Ex parte Basan (1885) 2 Morr 29 cited
Re Verma; Ex parte Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 4 FCR 181 referred to
Ebert v The Union Trustee Co of Australia Ltd (1960) 104 CLR 346 cited
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner of Railways (NSW) & Ors (1964) 112
CLR 125 followed
Bhagat v Royal & Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia Ltd [2000] NSWSC 159
Packer v Meagher (1984) 3 NSWLR 486 cited
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd and Ors (1988) 81 ALR 397 cited
Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association Inc (1986) ATPR ¶40, 748 referred to
Ruddock v Vadarlis [2001] FCA 1865 referred to
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 cited

HARI BHAGAT v GLOBAL CUSTODIANS LTD

N 7253 of 2001
N 7314 of 2001

O’LOUGHLIN, WHITLAM AND MARSHALL JJ
13 MARCH 2002
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7253 of 2001

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

HARI BHAGAT
APPLICANT

AND:

GLOBAL CUSTODIANS LTD
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

O’LOUGHLIN, WHITLAM AND MARSHALL JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

13 MARCH 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd 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
[2002] FCA 223
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd involved a legal dispute between Mr Bhagat and Global Custodians Ltd, with the case being heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Mr Bhagat sought to challenge prior judgments and factual findings that had been made against him in relation to a fraudulent assignment and the commencement of Supreme Court Proceeding No 2539/1998. He alleged that Global Custodians Ltd, its officers, solicitors, and the Speights were unscrupulous and dishonest, and that they had engaged in fraudulent activities. The primary issue the court needed to decide was whether Mr Bhagat had provided sufficient grounds to warrant a review of the earlier judgments made by Young J and upheld by the Court of Appeal. The court had to determine if Mr Bhagat's submissions presented new evidence or legal errors that warranted reconsideration of the previous findings.

The court found that Mr Bhagat had failed to provide substantive reasons to overturn the prior judgments. Despite his repeated assertions of fraud and dishonesty, he did not advance any new evidence or point to any errors of law that would justify revisiting the factual findings. The court emphasised that merely reiterating unsuccessful arguments without additional support does not compel a court to reassess earlier decisions. Furthermore, the court held that Mr Bhagat had not presented any counter-claim, set-off, or cross-demand as referred to in the Bankruptcy Act. Consequently, the court concluded that there were no valid grounds for the application for leave to appeal to be granted.

In conclusion, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court ruled that Mr Bhagat's arguments lacked merit and did not provide sufficient reasons to warrant a review of the previous judgments. Additionally, there were no counter-claims or cross-demands that could be considered under the Bankruptcy Act. The court ordered that Mr Bhagat pay the costs of the application, which were to be taxed on a party and party basis if an agreement could not be reached.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

2. The applicant pay the costs of this application which costs are to be taxed in default of agreement.

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

Despite the adverse results of his litigation to date, Mr Bhagat continues to challenge the factual findings that have been made against his interests. For example, in par 6 of his written submissions he said:“There is evidence that [Global] and its officers and solicitors and the Speights are unscrupulous, dishonest and unreliable and any claims made by them without supporting evidence cannot be accepted as they were all aware prior to the hearing before Mr Justice Young … that [Global], its officers and solicitors and the Speights had cheated and defrauded the EMFFT … in the fraudulent commencement of Supreme Court Proceeding No 2539/1998 on the basis of a fraudulent assignment [from the Speights].”What Mr Bhagat has failed to appreciate is that mere repetition of his arguments, without more, is insufficient to invite a Court in Bankruptcy to go behind a judgment. There is an onus on Mr Bhagat to advance reasons why the findings of fact that were made by Young J were wrong or, at the least, subject to serious question. It is also open to an applicant, such as Mr Bhagat, to point to some error of law in the trial judge’s reasons – but he has done neither of those things. He has merely repeated his unsuccessful arguments and nothing in them has given this Court any reason for concern.CONCLUSION In our opinion, Mr Bhagat’s complaints do not have any substance. Beaumont J correctly concluded that the information that Mr Bhagat had placed before him did not warrant him going behind the judgment of Young J and the decision of the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, notwithstanding the extent of material that Mr Bhagat has placed before this Court, there was nothing in it or in the material that was before the primary judge that could be classified as a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand of the type that is referred to in the Bankruptcy Act. The application for leave to appeal is refused. Mr Bhagat is to pay the costs of the application. Those costs are to be taxed on the normal party and party basis in default of agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.