Kedem v Johnson Lawyers Legal Practice Pty Ltd (No 3)

The appeal was brought by Kedem against Johnson Lawyers Legal Practice Pty Ltd, a law firm, concerning a bankruptcy notice. The case originated from decisions made in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, which is now known as the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The central issue in this case was whether the court should consider previous judgments from state courts and whether the appellant had a counterclaim, set-off, or cross-demand.

The court needed to decide if it should examine four prior judgments from state courts that had already ruled on the dispute. Furthermore, it had to determine whether the appellant had any counterclaim, set-off, or cross-demand against the respondent. The appellant argued that the Federal Magistrates Court should review the state court judgments, while the respondent maintained that the court should not go behind those judgments. Additionally, the appellant sought to assert a counterclaim, set-off, or cross-demand, which the respondent disputed.

The court found that it should not examine the prior judgments from the state courts, as these were final and conclusive. The court also held that the appellant did not have a valid counterclaim, set-off, or cross-demand against the respondent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. This ruling emphasised the importance of adhering to the hierarchy of courts and the finality of judgments rendered by lower courts.