Cordes v Dr Peter Ironside Pty Ltd

Case [2009] QCA 302

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lauren Kay Cordes as Trustee for Alexander George v Dr Peter Ironside P/L & Ors [2009] QCA 302

PARTIES:

LAUREN KAY CORDES AS TRUSTEE FOR ALEXANDER GEORGE
(applicant/appellant)
v
DR PETER IRONSIDE PTY LTD
ACN 008 126 387
(first respondent/first respondent)
DR PETER IRONSIDE
(second respondent/second respondent)
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED
ACN 004 044 937
(third respondent/third respondent)
WILLIAM JOHN FLETCHER AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LAUREN KAY CORDES
(fourth respondent/fourth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5509 of 2009
SC No 3747 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 October 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 July 2009

JUDGES:

Holmes and Chesterman JJA and Mullins J
Joint reasons for judgment of Holmes and Chesterman JJA; separate reasons of Mullins J, concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

BANKRUPTCY – BANKRUPTCY COURTS – JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF COURT – GENERALLY – where primary judge ordered a stay of appellant’s Supreme Court action on the basis that it came within the jurisdiction in bankruptcy which s 27 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) vests exclusively in the Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court – where appellant’s action required determinations against title of her trustee in bankruptcy to property – whether appellant’s action fell within exclusive jurisdiction in bankruptcy

ESTOPPEL – FORMER ADJUDICATION AND MATTERS OF RECORD OR QUASI OF RECORD – FORMER ADJUDICATION – JUDGMENT INTER PARTES – RES JUDICATA – WHETHER CAUSE OF ACTION THE SAME – where in her Supreme Court action appellant raised issues which had been determined in proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court – where primary judge rejected an argument for the stay that a res judicata or issue estoppel arose, for want of privity of parties – where on appeal third respondent contended that argument should have succeeded – whether Federal Magistrates Court’s judgment created a res judicata or issue estoppel, barring appellant’s Supreme Court action

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 27, s 31

Banks v Ferrari [2000] NSWSC 874, cited
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 853, cited
Denby (as T’ee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of S S Wing Tam) [2002] QSC 117, cited
Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234; [1984] HCA 17, applied
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89; [2007] HCA 22, applied
Geia v Palm Island Aboriginal Council [2001] 1 Qd R 245; [1999] QCA 389, cited
Gleeson v J Wippell & Co [1977] 1 WLR 510, cited
Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446; [1950] HCA 22, applied
Mango Boulevard P/L v Spencer & Ors[2008] QCA 274, cited
Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd & Anor v Industrial Court of New South Wales & Anor (2008) 251 ALR 19; [2008] FCAFC 172, considered
Ramsay v…

Continue reading Cordes v Dr Peter Ironside Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cordes v Dr Peter Ironside Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 302
Case
[2009] QCA 302
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court of Appeal was an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the appellant sought to bring an action against her trustee in bankruptcy. The appellant's action required determinations against the title of her trustee in bankruptcy to property, and the primary judge ordered a stay of the appellant’s Supreme Court action on the basis that it came within the exclusive jurisdiction in bankruptcy as provided by section 27 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The appeal centred around whether the Supreme Court action fell within the exclusive jurisdiction in bankruptcy and whether the Federal Magistrates Court’s judgment created a res judicata or issue estoppel, barring the appellant’s Supreme Court action.

The central legal issues before the Court were the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court over matters of bankruptcy, and the applicability of res judicata and issue estoppel principles. The appellant argued that the Supreme Court action was not within the exclusive jurisdiction in bankruptcy, as it did not require determination of a matter that would affect the estate of the bankrupt. Additionally, the appellant contended that the Federal Magistrates Court's judgment did not create a res judicata or issue estoppel, as there was no privity of parties between the appellant and the parties in the Federal Magistrates Court proceedings. The third respondent argued that the appeal should have succeeded on the basis that the Federal Magistrates Court’s judgment created a res judicata or issue estoppel, barring the appellant’s Supreme Court action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the primary judge correctly exercised his discretion to stay the appellant's Supreme Court action. The Court held that the action required determinations against the title of the trustee in bankruptcy to property, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction in bankruptcy. The Court also found that the Federal Magistrates Court’s judgment did not create a res judicata or issue estoppel, as there was no privity of parties between the appellant and the parties in the Federal Magistrates Court proceedings. The Court held that the primary judge was correct to reject the argument that a res judicata or issue estoppel arose, for want of privity of parties. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

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.