Dimitrov v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited

Dimitrov (the applicant) sought to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued by Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited (the respondent). The dispute concerned whether the applicant possessed a counter-claim, set-off, or cross-demand sufficient to prevent the bankruptcy notice from being valid under sections 40(1)(g) and 41 of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth). The application was heard by Judge Altobelli in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's alleged counter-claim, set-off, or cross-demand possessed the necessary element of mutuality to defeat the bankruptcy notice. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the applicant's asserted rights against the respondent were so connected to the debt owed to the respondent that they could be legally set off against it.

Judge Altobelli reasoned that for a counter-claim, set-off, or cross-demand to be effective in setting aside a bankruptcy notice, it must be mutual. This means the claim must be between the same parties and in the same right. The Court found that the applicant's alleged counter-claim lacked this essential element of mutuality. Consequently, the Court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient counter-claim, set-off, or cross-demand as required by the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth).

The application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was dismissed.