Khera v Jones - [2007] FMCA 1453

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KHERA v JONES

[2007] FMCA 1453

BANKRUPTCY – Application to set aside Bankruptcy Notice – whether counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand equal to or exceeding amount claimed in Bankruptcy Notice – assignment of debt.

Bankruptcy Act 1966, ss.40(1)(g), 41(6A), 41(7)

Ebert v Union Trustee Co. Australia Ltd (1960) 104 CLR 346

Applicant:

JASWANT KHERA

Respondent:

IAN DURSTON JONES

File number:

SYG 3246 of 2005

Judgment of:

McInnis FM

Hearing date:

14 December 2006 and 25 January 2007

Date of last submission:

29 January 2007

Delivered at:

Melbourne (and by video link to Sydney)

Delivered on:

24 August 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr P Hill

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Jaswant Khera

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr B Skinner

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Macquarie Legal Practice

ORDERS

The Application as amended be dismissed.
The Applicant Debtor pay the Respondent Creditor's costs of and incidental to the application, including reserved costs if any, to be taxed in default of agreement pursuant to Order 62 of the Federal Court Rules.
Liberty to apply within 7 days is granted to the parties.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 3246 of 2005

JASWANT KHERA

Applicant

And

IAN ROBERT DURSTON JONES

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Jaswant Khera (the Applicant Debtor) relies upon an Amended Application filed 30 November 2005 seeking to set aside a Bankruptcy Notice issued 13 October 2005 (the Bankruptcy Notice) by Ian Robert Durston Jones (the Respondent Creditor).
The Bankruptcy Notice claims that the Applicant Debtor owes the Respondent Creditor the sum of $19,614.00. The Bankruptcy Notice annexes a certificate of judgment from the local court at Sydney wherein it appears that the Respondent Creditor was the plaintiff who recovered judgment against the Applicant Debtor who was the defendant on 5 May 2005 "in the sum of $19,614."
The proceedings have had a somewhat chequered history. Initially an application was filed by the Applicant Debtor on 7 November 2005 on what appears to be a pro forma application wherein the Applicant Debtor had ticked the box which reads, "Application under sections 30, 41(6A) Bankruptcy Act." The initial application was supported by an affidavit of the Applicant Debtor sworn 7 November 2005 where, in part, the Applicant Debtor deposes that he was served with the Bankruptcy Notice on 26 October 2005. In that affidavit the Applicant Debtor deposed “I have applied to set aside the judgement being legal costs assessed by a costs assessor.”
The Applicant Debtor annexed to the first affidavit a copy of an application in the Supreme Court of New South Wales entitled, "SUMMONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL" dated 4 June 2005.
When the application came before a Registrar of the Court on 7 November 2005 an order was made that the time for compliance by the Applicant Debtor with the requirements of the Bankruptcy Notice be extended up to and including Tuesday 15 November 2005. A notice of appearance was filed by the Respondent Creditor on 11 November 2005.
The Applicant…

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 Khera v Jones

Details

AGLC: Khera v Jones [2007] FMCA 1453
Case: [2007] FMCA 1453
Decision Date: 24 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Khera versus Jones was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The Applicant, Khera, sought to set aside a judgment obtained by the Respondent, Jones, who was the creditor. Khera, the debtor, argued that the judgment should be set aside on the grounds of an alleged error in the proceedings that led to the judgment. The legal dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Federal Court's inherent jurisdiction to rectify errors in proceedings and the conditions under which such jurisdiction can be exercised.

The court was required to determine whether the Applicant had demonstrated a valid basis for setting aside the judgment and whether the alleged error was of a nature that warranted intervention under the court's inherent jurisdiction. The Applicant contended that there was a procedural error that deprived them of a fair opportunity to defend the claim, which warranted the setting aside of the judgment. The court examined the arguments put forward by the Applicant, considering the procedural history of the case and the nature of the alleged error. The court also assessed whether the Applicant had acted with due diligence in bringing the application and whether the delay in making the application was justified.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the Applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for setting aside the judgment. The court found that the alleged error did not rise to the level of a procedural defect that would warrant the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Applicant's delay in bringing the application and lack of diligence in pursuing their rights were factors that weighed against the grant of relief. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered that the Applicant pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to the application. The court granted liberty to apply within 7 days to the parties to seek a review of the costs order if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application as amended be dismissed.

The Applicant Debtor pay the Respondent Creditor's costs of and incidental to the application, including reserved costs if any, to be taxed in default of agreement pursuant to Order 62 of the Federal Court Rules.

Liberty to apply within 7 days is granted to the parties.

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.