Gomez v Koroneos Trading as Koroneos Lawyers

The applicants sought judicial review of a Registrar's decision not to set aside a bankruptcy notice. The applicants contended that failure to set aside the notice would render any directions made by the Supreme Court or VCAT nugatory. The respondent was Koroneos Trading as Koroneos Lawyers.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had demonstrated a counterclaim, set-off, or cross-demand within the meaning of section 40(1)(a) of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth) that would justify setting aside the bankruptcy notice.

Judge Burchardt reasoned that the applicants had failed to establish the requisite elements of a counterclaim, set-off, or cross-demand. Furthermore, the court found that any asserted cross-claim was capable of being raised in the original proceedings. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants' application was dismissed, and they were ordered to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $2,000.