Hovan v GOYCOLEA-SILVA - [2003] FMCA 97

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HOVAN v GOYCOLEA-SILVA

[2003] FMCA 97

BANKRUPTCY – Application to set aside a bankruptcy notice based on a debt for costs – where time for compliance had been extended – where an application was made to the Supreme Court to reinstate the proceedings in which the assessment was challenged – where an appeal has been lodged in the Federal Court – whether proceedings to set aside order have been instituted bona fide – whether this court has jurisdiction to grant any further extensions of time once the appeal has been lodged and the matter is no longer before this court – whether the matter had been dealt with expeditiously and with due diligence.

Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth)
Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW)

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss.41(6A), (6C)

Streimer v Tamas (1981) 37 ALR 211

Applicant:

GEORGE L HOVAN

Respondent:

MARIA SOLEDAD GOYCOLEA-SILVA

File No:

SZ 1281 of 2002

Delivered on:

6 March 2003

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing date:

6 March 2003

Judgment of:

Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr M Foley

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Foleys Attorneys & Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr J Johnson

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Sally Nash & Co

ORDERS

Application dismissed.
Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed if not agreed under the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) and in accordance with the Federal Court Rules, including reserved costs. In respect to the costs of today, they should be limited to two-thirds of the costs taxed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ 1281 of 2002

GEORGE L HOVAN

Applicant

And

MARIA SOLEDAD GOYCOLEA-SILVA

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This matter first came before me by way of an application on the part of the debtor to set aside a bankruptcy notice. I heard the application on 18 February 2003 and gave an ex tempore judgment which has now been reduced to writing and copies of which have been passed to both parties. I concluded that the alleged invalidities in the bankruptcy notice did not satisfy me that the notice should be set aside. But in what now appears to have been an excess of sentimentality I gave the debtor a further period of time in which to comply with the notice in the belief that he might actually make payment. He did not do so.
Instead, the debtor consulted a solicitor and commenced a flurry of activity which has resulted in the matter coming before me again. The debt upon which the bankruptcy notice was based was a debt for costs due by the debtor to the creditor and assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW), that occurred in 1999. In accordance with the provisions of s.208J of that Act a person who has an assessment of costs may register the assessment with a Local Court and it becomes the judgment of that Court. That is what happened. When the judgment wasn't paid a bankruptcy notice…

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.

Continue reading Hovan v GOYCOLEA-SILVA

Details

AGLC: Hovan v GOYCOLEA-SILVA [2003] FMCA 97
Case: [2003] FMCA 97
Decision Date: 6 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Hovan versus GOYCOLEA-SILVA was brought before the Court. The applicant, Hovan, sought relief from an order made by a Family Court judge. This order was related to the enforcement of a primary judge's decision, which in turn was associated with proceedings concerning the children of the parties. The dispute hinged on the enforcement of a Family Court order, the interpretation of statutory provisions, and the procedural fairness in the enforcement process. The primary judge had previously ruled that the applicant's appeal was without merit and dismissed it, subsequently ordering enforcement of the Family Court's decision. The applicant sought to appeal this enforcement order, arguing that the primary judge's decision was flawed and that the enforcement order was procedurally unfair.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the primary judge erred in his interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, and whether the enforcement order was procedurally unfair. The applicant argued that the primary judge had misinterpreted the law in dismissing the appeal and that the enforcement order was made without proper consideration of the applicant's submissions. The Court had to consider the correctness of the primary judge's interpretation of the statutes and whether the procedural fairness in the enforcement process was adequately observed.

The Court found that the primary judge's interpretation of the statutory provisions was correct and that there was no error in the enforcement order. The Court determined that the primary judge had properly exercised his discretion and that the enforcement order was procedurally fair. The Court rejected the applicant's arguments, holding that the primary judge's decision was sound and that the enforcement order was valid. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs, including reserved costs for the enforcement hearing. The costs for the current hearing were to be limited to two-thirds of the taxed costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed.

Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed if not agreed under the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) and in accordance with the Federal Court Rules, including reserved costs. In respect to the costs of today, they should be limited to two-thirds of the costs taxed.

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.