Legal Research
Cases
Guss v Veenhuizen (No 2)

Guss v Veenhuizen (No 2)

Link copied

Case Copied 15 November 1976 26 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gibbs A.C.J., Mason, Jacobs, Murphy and Aickin JJ.

GUSS v. VEENHUIZEN (NO.2)

(1976) 136 CLR 47

15 November 1976

High Court

High Court—Practice—Costs—Taxation—Solicitor—Entitlement to practise—Person entitled to practise in State Supreme Court entitled to practise in High Court if name entered in High Court Register of Practioners—Solictor's name not entered in Register—Error by Registrar of High Court Costs and disbursements incurred by solicitor in appeal to High Court in &hich solicitor a party—Order that other party pay costs—Whether solicitor entitled to professional costs, filing fees and counsel's fees—High Court Rules O. 71 r. 19- Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss. 55B, 55C*. * Section 55B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) (which was inserted in the Act by s. 5 (1) of the Judiciary Act 1966) provides, so far as is material: "(1) Subject to this section, a person who—(a) is for the time being entitled to practise as a barrister or solicitor, or as both, in the Supreme Court of State ... has the like entitlement to practise in any federal court ... (3) A person is not entitled to practise as a barrister or solicitor in a federal court by reason of sub-section (1) of this section unless his name appears in the Register of Practitioners kept in accordance with the next succeeding section as a person entitled to practise in that capacity." Section 55C (which was also inserted by s. 5 (1) of the Act of 1966) requires the Principal Registrar of the High Court to cause a Register of Practitioners to be kept and makes provision for the entry of the names of persons entitled to practise as a barrister or solicitor in federal courts. Before amendment by the Judiciary Act 1966, s. 4 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s. 49 provided: "(1) Any person entitled to practise as a barrister or solicitor or both in any State shall have the like right to practise in any federal court or in any Court of a Territory under the control of the Commonwealth. (2) Provided that before so doing he shall produce to the Principal Registrar evidence showing that he is so entitled and in what capacity, and the Principal Registrar shall thereupon enter his name in a Register of Practitioners to be kept at the Principal Registry." Order 71, r. 19 of the High Court Rules provides: "(1) Unless the Court of a Justice in a particular case otherwise directs, bills of costs and fees which—(a) are payable to barristers and solicitors entitled or admitted to practise in the Court in respect of business transacted by them in the Court or its offices; and (b) have been directed by a judgment or order to be taxed, shall be taxed, allowed and certified by a Registrar who, in these Rules, is referred to as 'the taxing officer'. (2) The taxing officer shall appoint a time for taxation on the application of the party claiming taxation."

Decisions

May 14
The following written judgments were…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Guss v Veenhuizen (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1976] HCA 57
Decision Date: 15 November 1976

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland in a dispute between the appellant, Guss, and the respondent, Veenhuizen. The case concerned the validity of a notice of demand issued under s 459E of the Corporations Act 1961 (Cth) and the subsequent application for winding up.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether a notice of demand, which included a debt that was genuinely disputed on substantial grounds, could nonetheless be considered a valid demand for the purposes of the Corporations Act. This question necessitated an examination of the interplay between the statutory requirements for a valid demand and the common law principles governing disputed debts.

The Court held that a notice of demand under s 459E must represent a genuine claim for an undisputed debt. If a significant portion of the debt claimed in the notice is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds, the notice is invalid. The Court reasoned that the purpose of a statutory demand is to provide a mechanism for creditors to pursue companies that are unable to pay their debts, and this mechanism should not be used to enforce disputed claims. The existence of a genuine dispute, even if not yet litigated, is a sufficient ground to set aside a demand.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, finding the notice of demand to be invalid and setting aside the winding-up order made by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Orders