Danes v Sulman - [2012] FMCA 741

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DANES v SULMAN

[2012] FMCA 741

BANKRUPTCY – Application to set aside bankruptcy notice – dispute as to identity of contracting party – application dismissed.

Danes v Sulman [2012] QCATA 81
Wren v Mahony (1972) 126 CLR 212

Applicant:

COLLEEN DANES

Respondent:

MATTHEW JAMES SULMAN

File Number:

BRG 992 of 2011

Judgment of:

Jarrett FM

Hearing date:

21 June 2012

Date of Last Submission:

21 June 2012

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

21 June 2012

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

The Respondent appeared in person

ORDERS

That the application for review filed on 25 November, 2011 be dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to be taxed and paid in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 992 of 2011

COLLEEN DANES

Applicant

And

MATTHEW JAMES SULMAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex tempore

I propose not to adjourn the proceedings and to dispose of them now. I see no basis upon which I would grant a further adjournment of the application as requested by the applicant.
Before the Court is an application to review the orders of Registrar Baldwin made on 17 November, 2011. By those orders, the Registrar dismissed an application to set aside a bankruptcy notice and to extend time within which to comply with the bankruptcy notice. The basis upon which the applicant now seeks to have the bankruptcy notice set aside is essentially that she is not a person who owes a debt to the respondent.
The background facts have been set out chapter and verse in the material but a convenient and, it seems to me accurate recitation of those facts appears in the decision of Dr John Forbes, the member of Queensland Civil Administrative Tribunal who delivered a judgment on 18 May, 2012 on Ms Danes’ application to extend time within which to appeal a decision of QCAT: Danes v Sulman [2012] QCATA 81. In that decision, Dr Forbes sets out the facts as follows:
[1] The family of Colleen Danes has been associated with Rugby League football for many years. She developed a talent for devising internet websites, operating a business known as Australian Sportsline Pty Ltd, of which she is sole director. In more successful times her clientele included the South Sydney Leagues Club and the NSW Rugby League Club.
[2] In early 2009 Danes suspected that rival businesses, Sporting Pulse (ANZ) Pty Ltd and ARLD Pty Ltd were infringing copyright in her (or her company’s) websites. So she consulted the Respondent Michael Sulman, who advertises his firm as intellectual property lawyers, patent and trade mark attorneys.
[3] In February 2010 Sulman commenced proceedings for Australian Sportsline against Sporting Pulse in the Federal Court of Australia. However, some five months later, those proceedings were abandoned for lack of funds. Sulman delivered his final account, addressed to “Colleen and Michael Danes”, on 28 July 2010, claiming a balance…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Danes v Sulman

Details

AGLC: Danes v Sulman [2012] FMCA 741
Case: [2012] FMCA 741
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, Colleen Danes sought to set aside a bankruptcy notice served on her by Matthew James Sulman. The dispute revolved around whether Danes owed Sulman the debt for which the bankruptcy notice was issued. Sulman, a solicitor, claimed that Danes owed him legal fees for services rendered, which he sought to recover through the bankruptcy process. The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed Danes' application to set aside the bankruptcy notice, ruling that there was no basis to question the validity of the debt. The court's reasoning was based on previous determinations that Danes was indeed liable for the legal fees. Despite Danes' arguments that she had not signed a formal agreement with Sulman and that she acted merely as an agent for her company, the court found that her actions constituted acceptance of the legal services and the associated costs. The court held that Sulman's claim was supported by a valid judgment from the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), which had been registered with the Magistrates Court of Queensland. As a result, the court refused Danes' application for review and ordered her to pay Sulman's costs associated with the application.

Orders