Hows v Richmastery Limited - [2007] FMCA 1606

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HOWS v RICHMASTERY LIMITED

[2007] FMCA 1606

BANKRUPTCY – Application to set aside bankruptcy notice – foreign bankruptcy – whether judgment stayed.

BANKRUPTCY – Application to set aside bankruptcy notice – abuse of process.

Bankruptcy Act 1966, ss.29, 30, 58

Clyne v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 154 CLR 589
Wiltshire-Smith v Olsson (1995) 57 FCR at 584-5; citing
Re Solomon; ex parte Reid (1986) 10 FCR 423
Radich v Bank of New Zealand (1993) 45 FCR 101
Ex parte McCulloch (1880) 14 Ch D 716
Hall v Woolf (1908) 7 CLR 207
Slack v Bottoms English [2002] FCA 1445
ASIC v Forge (2003) 133 FCR 487

Applicant:

DAVID BRYCE HOWS

Respondent:

RICHMASTERY LIMITED

File number:

BRG 768 of 2007

Judgment of:

Wilson FM

Hearing date:

14 September 2007

Date of last submission:

20 September 2007

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

21 September 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Chapple

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Holding Redlich

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Peden

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Hopgood Ganim Lawyers

ORDERS

That the application filed 6 September 2007 is dismissed.
That the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, to be taxed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BRG 768 of 2007

DAVID BRYCE HOWS

Applicant

And

RICHMASTERY LIMITED

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 13 June 2007, the applicant was made bankrupt in New Zealand on the petition of a creditor other than the respondent. Prior to his bankruptcy, the respondent had obtained a judgment against the applicant, in New Zealand.
The respondent registered the New Zealand judgment in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 24 May 2007, pursuant to the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cwth). The effect of this was that the judgment could thereafter be enforced as if it had been given in Queensland on the day of registration.
On 27 July 2007, on application by the respondent, the Official Receiver issued a bankruptcy notice directed to the applicant. That bankruptcy notice was served on the applicant on 16 August 2007.
The bankruptcy notice was applied for, and issued, based upon the judgment registered in Queensland by the respondent.
The applicant argues that the bankruptcy notice should be set aside because:
a)The Official Receiver had no power to issue it; or
b)It constitutes an abuse of process.
Section 41(1)(a)(i) Bankruptcy Act1966 provides:
41(1)     An Official Receiver may issue a bankruptcy notice on the application of a creditor who has obtained against a debtor:
(a)     a final judgment or final order that:
(i)     is of the kind described in paragraph 40(1)(g)
The kind of judgment described in s. 40(1)(g) is one, “the execution of which has not been stayed”. The applicant submits that because the applicant has been made bankrupt in New Zealand, and judgment was obtained by the respondent against the applicant in New Zealand, the respondent’s right is to prove in the applicant’s bankruptcy, and cannot execute on its judgment. It is submitted that…

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 Hows v Richmastery Limited

Details

AGLC: Hows v Richmastery Limited [2007] FMCA 1606
Case: [2007] FMCA 1606
Decision Date: 21 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Hows and Richmastery Limited was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, Hows, sought to enforce a settlement agreement made with the respondent, Richmastery Limited, in relation to a commercial dispute. The primary issue before the court was whether the settlement agreement was binding and enforceable, and whether there were grounds to dismiss the respondent's application on procedural grounds. The court also considered whether the settlement agreement was vitiated by any factors such as misrepresentation or undue influence.

The court's reasoning focused on the nature of the settlement agreement and the circumstances surrounding its execution. It was determined that the settlement agreement was a binding contract, and the applicant had failed to demonstrate any grounds for dismissing the respondent's application on procedural grounds. The court further found that there was no evidence of misrepresentation or undue influence that would vitiate the agreement. As a result, the applicant's claim to enforce the settlement agreement was dismissed.

In dismissing the application, the court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, to be taxed. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that settlement agreements are properly executed and that all parties understand the terms and implications of such agreements. The court's dismissal of the application and imposition of costs highlights the need for careful consideration and adherence to procedural requirements in enforcing settlement agreements.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the application filed 6 September 2007 is dismissed.

That the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, to be 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.