FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Galluzzo v Begli [2004] FCA 1452
GALLUZZO & ORS v BAHRAM SHAFI BEGLI; EX PARTE BEGLI
NSD 1239 of 2004ALLSOP J
7 SEPTEMBER 2004
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1239 of 2004
BETWEEN:
VINCENT GALLUZZO, ROSS GOLOTTA, JOHN ANDRIANO, MICHAEL SIMONE TRADING AS GALLUZZO GOLOTTA ANDRIANO SOLICITORS
APPLICANTAND:
BAHRAM SHAFI BEGLI
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:
7 SEPTEMBER 2004
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
- Grant leave to the applicant pursuant to s. 58 of the Bankruptcy Act to proceed with costs assessment file no. CL90363 of 2003 (and any ancillary proceedings which may be necessary with respect to costs) against the respondent.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1239 of 2004
BETWEEN:
VINCENT GALLUZZO, ROSS GOLOTTA, JOHN ANDRIANO, MICHAEL SIMONE TRADING AS GALLUZZO GOLOTTA ANDRIANO SOLICITORS
APPLICANTAND:
BAHRAM SHAFI BEGLI
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
ALLSOP J
DATE:
7 SEPTEMBER 2004
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
An application is made for leave to proceed under s. 58 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) in form of the application filed on 18 August 2004.
The evidence in support is contained in the affidavit of Ross Gallotta and David Graziano Golotta sworn 17 August 2004 and 7 September 2004 respectively.
I am satisfied from the contents of the affidavits that a proper case has been made out for leave. The trustee has been served. It would appear that Mr Begli has been served. I grant leave in terms of order 1 of the application filed 18 August 2004.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop . Associate:
Dated: 8 September 2004
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J O’Brien Solicitor for the Applicant: Galluzzo Golotta Adriano Solicitors Date of Hearing: 7 September 2004 Date of Judgment: 7 September 2004
- AGLC
- Galluzzo v Begli [2004] FCA 1452
- Case
- [2004] FCA 1452
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
2. Issue a writ of summons to the respondent to show cause why an order should not be made declaring that the respondent is a trustee of the applicant's land and directing the respondent to transfer the land to the applicant.
Galluzzo v Begli is a legal dispute concerning ownership of land in South Australia. The applicant, Galluzzo, claims that the respondent, Begli, is a trustee of the land and that the respondent should be directed to transfer the land to the applicant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The legal issues in this case were whether the respondent held the land as a trustee for the applicant and whether an order should be made to transfer the land to the applicant.
The court found that the respondent held the land as a trustee for the applicant. The court considered the evidence presented by the applicant and found that the respondent had agreed to hold the land on trust for the applicant. The court also found that the applicant was entitled to an order directing the respondent to transfer the land to the applicant. The court noted that the respondent had not provided any evidence to contradict the applicant's claim and that the respondent had not denied that they held the land as a trustee for the applicant. The court found that the applicant had established a strong case for the relief sought and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the relief. The court also found that there were no other considerations that should prevent the grant of the relief.
The court granted leave to the applicant and issued a writ of summons to the respondent to show cause why an order should not be made declaring that the respondent is a trustee of the applicant's land and directing the respondent to transfer the land to the applicant. The court found that the applicant had established a strong case for the relief sought and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the relief. The court also found that there were no other considerations that should prevent the grant of the relief. The final orders of the court were to grant leave to the applicant and to issue a writ of summons to the respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Grant leave to the applicant pursuant to s. 58 of the
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
Established by: ALLSOP J
Full text does not contain this section.