Liprini v Kerem - [2010] FMCA 130

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LIPRINI v KEREM & ANOR

[2010] FMCA 130

BANKRUPTCY – Bankruptcy notice – adjournment of application to set aside – directions defining issues and allowing further evidence in relation to some issues only.

Bankruptcy Act 1966, s.40(1)(g)

Liprini v Liprini [2008] NSWSC 423
Liprini v Liprini [2009] NSWSC, Unreported 10 July 2009

Applicant:

ALLAN STEPHEN LIPRINI

First Respondent:

FIKRI KEREM T/AS LAW PARTNERS SOLICITORS & BARRISTERS

Second Respondent:

ANDREW DANIEL T/AS LAW PARTNERS SOLICITORS & BARRISTERS

File Number:

SYG 2674 of 2009

Judgment of:

Smith FM

Hearing date:

17 February 2010

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

17 February 2010

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

In Person

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr S Maybury

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Law Partners Solicitors & Barristers

ORDERS

The hearing of the application is adjourned to 29 March 2010 at 10.15 am.
The following issues shall be the issues which shall be addressed at the hearing:
(i)Whether the bankruptcy notice is invalid and should be set aside by reason of the absence of page 7 of the prescribed form.
(ii)Whether the bankruptcy notice is invalid and should be set aside by reason of the absence of a date of issue on page 8.
(iii)Whether the bankruptcy was invalidly issued and should be set aside by reason of the underlying indebtedness being incurred by the applicant solely in a representative capacity as executor of his father’s estate, and noting the provisions of Part XI of the Bankruptcy Act.
(iv)Whether the bankruptcy notice was invalidly issued and should be set aside by reason of the applicant being given no notice of the Local Court proceedings.
(v)Whether the applicant has established a counter-claim etc within s.40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act arising from the circumstances of his instructing the respondents, being a counter-claim which he could not have set up in the Local Court proceedings.
The parties must file and serve all additional evidence in chief they wish to rely upon concerning issues i) to iv) on or before 3 March 2010.
No additional evidence in chief which was not filed on or before today will be admitted concerning issue (v) except with the leave of the Court. Any such evidence must be filed and served on or before 3 March 1010.
Any affidavits in reply must be filed and served on or before 17 March 2010.
Costs in relation to today’s listing and the adjournment are reserved.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2674 of 2009

ALLAN STEPHEN LIPRINI

Applicant

And

FIKRI KEREM T/AS LAW PARTNERS SOLICITORS & BARRISTERS

First Respondent

ANDREW DANIEL T/AS LAW PARTNERS SOLICITORS & BARRISTERS

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

This judgment explains my interlocutory orders made today, which adjourn the hearing of Dr Liprini’s application, isolate the issues which will be addressed, and attempt to confine the filing of additional evidence by both parties.
Dr Liprini has applied to set aside a bankruptcy notice, which he states was served on him on…

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 Liprini v Kerem

Details

AGLC: Liprini v Kerem [2010] FMCA 130
Case: [2010] FMCA 130
Decision Date: 17 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Liprini v Kerem involved a dispute concerning the validity of a bankruptcy notice. The applicant, Liprini, challenged the notice on multiple grounds, including the absence of certain pages and information, and argued that the bankruptcy was invalidly issued due to the underlying debt being incurred in his capacity as an executor. The respondents, Kerem, defended the validity of the notice and argued that the applicant had not provided sufficient grounds for setting it aside. The case required the court to determine the validity of the bankruptcy notice and whether any counter-claims could be established under the Bankruptcy Act.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the bankruptcy notice was invalid due to the absence of specific pages and information, and whether the notice was invalidly issued because the debt was incurred in a representative capacity. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the applicant was given proper notice of the Local Court proceedings and whether any counter-claims could be established under the Bankruptcy Act. The applicant argued that these deficiencies rendered the notice invalid and should be set aside, while the respondents maintained that the notice was properly issued and valid.

The court outlined the issues to be addressed at the next hearing, focusing on the validity of the bankruptcy notice based on the absence of certain pages and information, the date of issue, the nature of the underlying debt, the notice provided to the applicant, and any potential counter-claims. The court directed that all relevant evidence and affidavits needed to be filed by specific dates, reserving the decision on costs until a later date. The hearing was subsequently adjourned to allow for the presentation of additional evidence and arguments.

In its orders, the court adjourned the hearing to a specified date and time, mandated that all relevant evidence and affidavits be submitted by set deadlines, and reserved the decision on costs. The court also specified that certain evidence related to potential counter-claims could only be admitted with leave, further directing that any counter-claims must be addressed at the next hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

The hearing of the application is adjourned to 29 March 2010 at 10.15 am.

The following issues shall be the issues which shall be addressed at the hearing:

(i) Whether the bankruptcy notice is invalid and should be set aside by reason of the absence of page 7 of the prescribed form.

(ii) Whether the bankruptcy notice is invalid and should be set aside by reason of the absence of a date of issue on page 8.

(iii) Whether the bankruptcy was invalidly issued and should be set aside by reason of the underlying indebtedness being incurred by the applicant solely in a representative capacity as executor of his father’s estate, and noting the provisions of Part XI of the Bankruptcy Act.

(iv) Whether the bankruptcy notice was invalidly issued and should be set aside by reason of the applicant being given no notice of the Local Court proceedings.

(v) Whether the applicant has established a counter-claim etc within s.40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act arising from the circumstances of his instructing the respondents, being a counter-claim which he could not have set up in the Local Court proceedings.

The parties must file and serve all additional evidence in chief they wish to rely upon concerning issues i) to iv) on or before 3 March 2010.

No additional evidence in chief which was not filed on or before today will be admitted concerning issue (v) except with the leave of the Court. Any such evidence must be filed and served on or before 3 March 1010.

Any affidavits in reply must be filed and served on or before 17 March 2010.

Costs in relation to today’s listing and the adjournment are reserved.

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.