Dream Money Pty Ltd v Bernhard

Dream Money Pty Ltd sought to recover a debt from Bernhard through a statutory demand, which was subsequently reduced by a nominal amount after Bernhard lodged an offsetting claim for costs. Bernhard appealed the decision of the master who reduced the statutory demand, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to enable an estimate of the amount of Dream Money's taxed costs on the counterclaim. The matter came before the court to determine whether the master had sufficient evidence to make an estimate of Dream Money's taxed costs.

The central legal issue was whether the master had enough evidence to make an accurate estimate of Dream Money's taxed costs on the counterclaim. The court examined the requirements of the relevant legislation and case law to determine if the master's decision was based on sufficient evidence. The court had to consider the nature of the evidence presented, the standard of proof required, and the discretion afforded to the master in making an estimate.

The court found that the master had sufficient evidence to make an estimate of Dream Money's taxed costs on the counterclaim. The evidence provided was considered adequate to enable the master to make an informed estimate, despite it not being a precise figure. The court held that the master's discretion in making an estimate was not unbounded, but the evidence before the master was sufficient to enable a reasonable estimate to be made. The court concluded that the master's decision was within their discretion and did not constitute an error of law.

The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the master was upheld. The statutory demand was reduced by the nominal amount representing the estimated taxed costs of the counterclaim. The court found that the master had acted within their discretion and that there was sufficient evidence to make the estimate.