FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MACCHIA v NILANT | [2006] FMCA 1095 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Declaration sought pursuant to ss.116 and 58 of Bankruptcy Act 1966 – whether Anshun estoppel applies – whether special circumstance – lengthy litigation history – application dismissed. |
| Bankruptcy Act 1966, ss.30(1)(b), 58, 116 Administration Act 1903 (WA), s.14 Limitation Act (WA) 2005 |
| Macchia v Nilant(Trustee) [2006] FCA 213 Nilant v Macchia [2000] 104 FCA 238 Macchia v Nilant [2001] FCA 7 Re Macchia; Ex parte Macchia v Nilant [2000] FCA 353 |
| Applicant: | MARIO SILVERIO MACCHIA |
| Respondent: | CHARLES PHILIPE LOUIS NILANT |
| File number: | PEG 46 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | McInnis FM |
| Hearing date: | 15 May 2006 |
| Date of last submission: | 22 May 2006 |
| Delivered at: | Perth |
| Delivered on: | 3 August 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr S. Smith |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Lawton Gillon |
| Solicitor for the Respondent: | Mr A. Carles |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Carles Solicitors |
ORDERS
The Application be dismissed.
The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs to be taxed in default of agreement.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH |
PEG 46 of 2006
| MARIO SILVERIO MACCHIA |
Applicant
And
| CHARLES PHILPE LOUIS NILANT |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mario Silverio Macchia (the Applicant) in an application filed 2 March 2006, seeks orders pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (the Bankruptcy Act) against Charles Philipe Louis Nilant (the Respondent). The Respondent is sued in his capacity as trustee of the bankrupt estate of the Applicant.
The Applicant was declared bankrupt on 16 September 1991. The Applicant filed a statement of affairs on 21 January 1994. He was discharged from bankruptcy on 22 January 1997.
The application before this court seeks the following orders:
“2.A declaration pursuant to section 116 and 58 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 that the chose in action for due administration is not after acquired property pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
3.All rights title and interest of Mr Mario Macchia (the Applicant) whose Bankruptcy started on 21 January 1994 and was discharged on 22 January 1997 pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act 1996 and whose mother died intestate on 21 March 1995 did not form part of the property of the bankrupt as the right of action could not and did not accrue until the letters of administration were granted to the Public trustee as Administrators on 25 August 1998, some 18 months after the Applicant's discharge took place.”
In support of the application, the Applicant filed and served an affidavit sworn by him on 2 March 2006. That affidavit purports to set out background details and to some extent also contains legal argument, which in this instance is more appropriately dealt with by reference to the written and oral submissions made on behalf of the Applicant by his solicitor.
The parties to these proceedings have been engaged in an extensive litigation saga. The facts and background to the current application were summarised in just one of many Federal Court proceedings between the parties in Macchia v Nilant(Trustee)
Continue reading Macchia v Nilant
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Macchia v Nilant [2006] FMCA 1095
- Case
- [2006] FMCA 1095
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the court was whether there was a procedural error in the trial that warranted the setting aside of the judgment. The Applicant argued that there was a significant procedural error in the way the trial was conducted, specifically relating to the manner in which evidence was presented. The Respondent contended that any errors were minor and did not affect the fairness or outcome of the trial. The court had to assess the nature and impact of the alleged procedural error on the trial's fairness and the validity of the judgment.
The court found that the procedural error, while present, did not amount to a miscarriage of justice that would necessitate setting aside the judgment. The court held that the trial was conducted fairly, and the error did not prejudice the Applicant to a degree that would undermine the judgment's validity. The court further determined that the Applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant relief from the judgment. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondent's costs, to be taxed if the parties could not agree on the amount.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The Application be dismissed.
2.
The Applicant 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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.