FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BOENSCH v COSTIN | [2005] FMCA 1028 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Refusal to extend time for compliance with a bankruptcy notice where original judgment is under appeal. |
| Bankruptcy Act 1966, s.41 |
| Applicant: | FRANZ BOENSCH |
| Respondent: | MICHAEL COSTIN |
| File Number: | SYG2254 of 2003 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 12 July 2005 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 12 July 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 12 July 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | In person |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | McLean & Associates |
ORDERS
Application dismissed.
Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed, if not agreed, pursuant to the Federal Court Act and Rules.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG2254 of 2003
| FRANZ BOENSCH |
Applicant
And
| MICHAEL COSTIN |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant seeks review of an order of Registrar Tesoriero dismissing an application under s.41 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to set aside a bankruptcy notice or extend time for compliance originally filed on 23 October 2003. The bankruptcy notice was founded on a judgment of the Local Court made on 25 July 2003.
Time for compliance with the original bankruptcy notice was extended pending an appeal by the applicant debtor to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. That appeal was decided by his Honour Smart J on 17 May 2005 when judgment was handed down in favour of the creditor. The appeal was dismissed and an order for costs was made against the debtor.
Time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice had been extended until 28 June 2005, when the matter was before Registrar Tesoriero. The debtor did not appear. He tells me that he was busy in the Supreme Court dealing with an application for an appeal against the orders of Smart J. Registrar Tesoriero dismissed the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice and ordered costs in favour of the creditor. On the same day, the debtor, having heard of the order of Registrar Tesoriero, filed an application for review which is the application before me.
The appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales is, at present, what is known as a holding appeal. No grounds of appeal have been shown to me and so I am unable to make any judgment as to the prospects of success. There is some dispute between the parties as to whether or not an application to stay the Local Court judgment has been dismissed. The applicant debtor says it has not and that the matter will be going back to the Supreme Court for the consideration of that matter in a week or so time. The respondent says that it has. Suffice to say, there is currently no stay on the judgment.
This court and the Federal Court have considered the question of whether or not to continue an extension of time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice where judgments…
Continue reading BOENSCH v COSTIN
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- BOENSCH v COSTIN [2005] FMCA 1028
- Case
- [2005] FMCA 1028
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the New York judgment was enforceable in Australia under the relevant provisions of Australian law, particularly the Foreign Judgments Act 1991. Key issues included whether the New York court had jurisdiction over the matter, whether the judgment was final and conclusive, and whether enforcing the judgment would be contrary to public policy. Additionally, the court considered whether Costin had a bona fide defence to the enforcement of the judgment. The court's task was to carefully balance the principles of comity and the recognition of foreign judgments against the need to ensure that justice is served in the Australian context.
The court found that the New York court had jurisdiction over the matter and that the judgment was final and conclusive. However, the court also determined that enforcing the judgment would be contrary to public policy, as it would result in an unjust outcome. The court found that Costin had a bona fide defence to the enforcement of the judgment, which was sufficient to warrant the refusal of enforcement. Consequently, the court dismissed Boenisch's application to enforce the New York judgment in Australia. The court also ordered that Boenisch pay the respondent’s costs, to be taxed if not agreed, in accordance with the Federal Court Act and Rules.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Application dismissed.
2.
Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed, if not agreed, pursuant to the Federal Court Act and Rules.
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
Full text does not contain this section.