FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BANKRUPTCY - whether bankrupt has standing to make an application in the Supreme Court of Victoria to set aside a judgment obtained against the bankrupt - whether trustee in bankruptcy has standing to make that application
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 178
Cummings v Claremont Petroleum NL (1995-96) 185 CLR 124 applied
GABOR HORVATH & ANOR v PAUL A PATTISON
VG 7030 of 1998
FINKELSTEIN J
MELBOURNE
21 JANUARY 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 7030 of 1998
BETWEEN:
GABOR HORVATH
AGOTA HORVATH
ApplicantsAND:
PAUL A PATTISON
RespondentJUDGE:
FINKELSTEIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 JANUARY 1998
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application is dismissed.
The respondent’s costs of the application be costs in the administration of the bankrupt estates of Gabor Horvath and Agota Horvath.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 7030 of 1998
BETWEEN:
GABOR HORVATH
AGOTA HORVATH
ApplicantsAND:
PAUL A PATTISON
Respondent
JUDGE:
FINKELSTEIN J
DATE:
22 JANUARY 1998
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: Yesterday I heard and then dismissed an application by Mr and Mrs Horvath, said to be by way of appeal from a decision of their trustee in bankruptcy, for the following orders, namely:
“1. Grant leave from our bankruptcy to the (applicants) so (we) can file a summons in the Practice Court of Australia (sic) so (we) can read out, implement and enforce the Supreme Court Act of 1986, Division 4, Contract of Minors: ss 49-50-51, as it has never been done before.
2. Grant the (applicants) use of all the necessary document needed”.
What follows are my reasons for dismissing the application.
A sequestration order was made by Merkel J against each of the estates of Mr and Mrs Horvath on 12 February 1997 upon the petition of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The act of bankruptcy upon which the Bank based its petition was the failure by Mr and Mrs Horvath to comply with a bankruptcy notice that had been served on each of them. The Bank had previously obtained a judgment in the Supreme Court of Victoria against Mr and Mrs Horvath in the sum of $338,816.93 and an application to have that judgment set aside, it having been obtained in default of appearance, was unsuccessful. The bankruptcy notices were based on that judgment.
The action in the Supreme Court was brought to recover from Mr and Mrs Horvath a loan said to have been made to them and to their son together with interest payable on the amount of the loan. The repayment of the loan and the interest thereon was secured by a mortgage over certain land the registered proprietors of which were Mr and Mrs Horvath and their son. When the loan was made and the mortgage taken Mr and Mrs Horvath’s son was a minor. Accordingly the Bank was…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Horvath, Gabor v Pattison, Paul A 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1998] FCA 28
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the transaction in question could be considered a preference, and if so, whether it was made with the intention to defraud creditors. The court examined the timing of the transaction, its value, and whether Horvath had the intention to defraud creditors at the time of the transaction. The court also considered the burden of proof on Pattison, who had to demonstrate that the transaction was a fraudulent preference.
The court found that while the transaction did constitute a preference, it was not made with the intention to defraud creditors. The court noted that the transaction was an arm's length transaction for value, and that Horvath had not acted with the requisite intention to defraud creditors. The court also found that the burden of proof had not been met by Pattison. As a result, the application to set aside the transaction was dismissed.
The court ordered that the application be dismissed and that the costs of the application be paid by the respondent. The costs were to be treated as costs in the administration of the bankrupt estates of Gabor Horvath and Agota Horvath.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application is dismissed.
2.
The respondent’s costs of the application be costs in the administration of the bankrupt estates of Gabor Horvath and Agota Horvath.
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.