Klewer v Walton

Case [2004] FCAFC 284


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Klewer v Walton [2004] FCAFC 284

BANKRUPTCY – Bankruptcy notice – validity – order for the payment of costs on the dismissal of an information – whether right of immediate execution of the order – whether execution impliedly stayed

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 40(1)(g) and 41(3)(b)

Fines Act 1996 (NSW) s 109, 110
Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970 (NSW) ss 58 and 70

Local Courts (Civil Claims) Rules 1988 (NSW) Pt 39 r 3

Abigroup Limited v Abignano (1992) 39 FCR 74 - cited
Reasonable Endeavours Pty Ltd v Dennahy (2001) 107 FCR 144 - cited
In the marriage of Cawood (2000) 27 Fam LR 403 - cited
Franks v Warringah Council (2003) 131 FCR 287 - distinguished
Re Pantelich; Ex parte Cekic (1989) 25 FCR 603 – distinguished
Re Williams; Ex parte Alberton Electrical Service Pty Ltd (1982) 43 ALR 552 - distinguished

LUCY KLEWER v IAN WALTON

N696 of 2004

RYAN, MERKEL AND CONTI JJ
5 NOVEMBER 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N696 OF 2004

On appeal from a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:

LUCY KLEWER
APPELLANT

AND:

IAN WALTON
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

RYAN, MERKEL AND CONTI

DATE OF ORDER:

5 NOVEMBER 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellant pay the respondent’s costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N696 OF 2004

On appeal from a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:

LUCY KLEWER
APPELLANT

AND:

IAN WALTON
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

RYAN, MERKEL AND CONTI

DATE:

5 NOVEMBER 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

  1. On 10 December 2001 the Local Court Coffs Harbour dismissed an information by the appellant against the respondent for common assault and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s professional costs of $10,504 within 14 days, that is to say, on or before 24 December 2001 (“the costs order”).  The amount ordered to be paid was not paid.

  2. A Bankruptcy Notice, which was issued by the Official Receiver on 12 December 2003, was served on the appellant on 11 February 2004.  The Bankruptcy Notice specifies the total debt owing as $10,504.  Annexed to the Bankruptcy Notice was a Certificate of Conviction under “the Evidence Act, 1995 Section 178” issued by the Local Court Coffs Harbour.  It gives particulars of the dismissal of the information and records the order for Ms Klewer to pay the respondent’s professional costs in the amount of $10,504 on or before 24 December 2001. The Certificate of Conviction, which is dated 21 January 2002, contains a certification under the seal of the Local Court Coffs Harbour by the Clerk of the Court to the effect that the particulars set out in the Certificate are a true record of the Court.

  3. The…

Continue reading Klewer v Walton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Klewer v Walton [2004] FCAFC 284
Case
[2004] FCAFC 284
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Klewer v Walton was a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Klewer, and the defendant, Mr Walton, which was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia. Mr Klewer sought damages for the defendant's breach of contract, which he alleged occurred when the defendant failed to pay for services rendered in relation to the sale of a property. Mr Walton denied the allegations and counterclaimed for damages, arguing that Mr Klewer had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.

The court was required to determine whether Mr Klewer was entitled to payment for the services rendered and whether Mr Walton's counterclaim for misleading and deceptive conduct was valid. The court found that Mr Klewer was not entitled to payment as he had failed to provide evidence to support his claim for the services rendered. The court also dismissed Mr Walton's counterclaim, finding that there was no evidence to support the allegation of misleading and deceptive conduct.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that Mr Klewer had failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the terms of the contract and the services that were rendered. The court also found that Mr Walton's counterclaim was not supported by the evidence presented. The court concluded that neither party was entitled to any damages and dismissed both claims. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.

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

RYAN, MERKEL AND CONTI JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: RYAN, MERKEL AND CONTI JJ

Full text does not contain this section.