New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Elias v Pascoe [2006] NSWCA 110
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.HEARING DATE(S): 9 March 2006
JUDGMENT DATE:
9 May 2006JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Santow JA at 66; Bryson JA at 113 DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed with costs. Orders at [65]. CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – BANKRUPTCY – summary judgment – whether arguable case that claimant entitled to defend opponent’s action – jurisdiction of District Court to hear challenge to Notice issued pursuant to s139ZQ Bankruptcy Act 1966 – whether District Court proceedings should have been stayed to enable claimant to pursue application in Federal Magistrates Court to set aside Notice. LEGISLATION CITED: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (C’th) s5, s27, s120, s121, s123, s139J, s139ZQ, s139ZR, s139ZS, s139ZT, s139ZQ,
Constitution s75CASES CITED: Cottrell v Nichols [2003] FCA 1351
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) and Others [1964] 112 CLR 125
Green v Schneller (2001) 189 ALR 464
Halse v Norton (1997) 76 FCR 389
Re Chase; Permfox Pty Ltd v Official Receiver for the Bankruptcy District of New South Wales [2002] FCA 1564
Re McLernon; ex parte SWF Hoists and Industrial Equipment Pty Ltd v Prebble (1995) 58 FCR 391
Sutherland v Brian (1999) 149 FLR 321PARTIES: George ELIAS (Appellant)
Scott Darren PASCOE as trustee of the bankrupt Estate of Milad ELIAS (Respondent)FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40550/05 COUNSEL: V R W GRAY (Appellant)
B A J COLES, QC/ J M WHITE (Respondent)SOLICITORS: Strathfield Law (Appellant)
Kemp Strang (Respondent)LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 4851/03 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: J C Gibson DCJ LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 06/06/2005
CA 40550/05
DC 4851/039 MAY 2006GILES JA
SANTOW JA
BRYSON JA
1 GILES JA: Mr Milad Elias was made bankrupt on 18 November 2002. The respondent became the trustee of his bankrupt estate. On 13 July 2003 the Official Receiver gave to the appellant, a brother of Mr Milad Elias, a notice under s 139ZQ of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (C’th) (“the Act”), requiring that the appellant pay to the respondent $70,561 as money received as a result of a transaction by Mr Milad Elias that was void against the respondent (“the Notice”). On 17 December 2003 the respondent brought proceedings against the appellant in the District Court claiming the $70,561. On 6 June 2005 J C Gibson DCJ ordered that there be summary judgment against the appellant for that sum. This is an application for leave to appeal from the judge’s decision, heard on full submissions as if an appeal.
2 In my opinion, the judge was in error in ordering summary judgment, first, because she refused an…
Continue reading Elias v Pascoe
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Elias v Pascoe [2006] NSWCA 110
- Case
- [2006] NSWCA 110
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether Elias had an arguable case entitling him to defend Pascoe's action, and crucially, whether the District Court possessed the necessary jurisdiction to entertain Elias's challenge to the section 139ZQ notice. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether a stay of the District Court proceedings was warranted to permit Elias to seek relief in the Federal Magistrates Court.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that Elias did have an arguable case and that the District Court should not have granted summary judgment. The reasoning involved an analysis of the interplay between the jurisdiction of the District Court and the Federal Magistrates Court in matters arising under the *Bankruptcy Act*. The court determined that Elias was entitled to have his defence heard and that the proceedings in the District Court should not have been stayed. Leave to appeal was granted, and the appeal was allowed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed with costs. Orders at [65].
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.