Maroevic, D.S. v Facy, R - [1989] FCA 356

BANKRUPTCY - B a n k r u ~ t c y A c t 1 9 6 6 para. 4 0 ( 1 ) ( g ) - w h e t h e r

c o u n t e r - c l a l m , set-off or cross d e m a n d established - test
t o be appl ied - p r l m a facie case.
B a n k r u p t c y A c t 1 9 6 6 : S 4 0 ( l ) ( g )

DARIBOR STEPHAN MAROEVIC V RONALD FACY
Q2 380 of 1988

LOCKHART, HARTIGAN and H I L L JJ.
BRISBANE

21 A P R I L 1989

. , 4

. - . .

Er" - - -

- . m : ;

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
1
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

) NO. QG380 of 1988
)

GENERAL DIVISION 1
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OR QUEENSLAND EXERCISING FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN BANKRUPTCY
BETWEEN: DARIBOR STEPHAN MAROEVIC

Appellant

AND : RONALD FACY

Responlent

JUDGES MAKING ORDER: LOCKHART, HARTIGAN and HILL JJ.
DATE ORDER MADE: 21 APRIL 1989
WHERE ORDER MADE: BRISBANE

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed;
2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
1
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

) No. QG380 of 1988
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OR QUEENSLAND EXERCISING FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN BANKRUPTCY

BETWEEN : DARIBOR STEPHAN MAROEVIC

Appellant

AND : RONALD FACY

Respondent

COURT: LOCKHART, HARTIGAN and HILL JJ.
DATE: 21 APRIL 1989
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

This ie an appeal from the judgment of Kneipp J. in the Honour heard an application by Daribor Stephan Maroevlc, the

Supreme. Court of Queensland in a bankruptcy matter. His

appellant, pursuant to para. 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, that he had a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand which he could not have set up in the ac!tion in which the relevant judgment was obtained and which was equal to or exceeded the judgment sum of $5,887.46.

The bankruptcy proceedings arose out of an incident which took place on 12 March 1983 involving the appellant and the respondent which led to the respondent being wounded by a gun shot. The appellant was charged with a criminal offence in relation to the incident, and he was convicted by a jury. The respondent, Ronald Facy, subsequently sued the appellant for damages for personal injuries arising out of the incident in the Magistrates Court of Queensland. The appellant unsuccessfully defended those proceedings and judgment was entered for the respondent on 30 January 1985 in the amount previously mentioned. That judgment is the foundation of the bankruptcy notice which the respondent…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Maroevic, D.S. v Facy, R and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1989] FCA 356
Decision Date: 21 Apr 1989

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Maroevic v Facy revolves around a bankruptcy dispute where the appellant, D.S. Maroevic, sought to establish the validity of a counterclaim, set-off, or cross-demand against the respondent, R Facy, under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. The appellant claimed that certain amounts owed to him by the respondent should be offset against debts the respondent owed to the appellant, thereby reducing the total amount owed. The court was tasked with determining whether such a counterclaim or set-off was valid and could be established under the relevant statutory provisions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory framework of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, particularly section 40(1)(g), allowed for the establishment of a counterclaim, set-off, or cross-demand in the context of the appellant's claims against the respondent. The court needed to interpret the statutory language and assess whether the appellant's claims met the legal criteria for such a set-off or counterclaim. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the respondent's actions or any other factors precluded the establishment of such a claim.

The court, after a thorough analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and case law, concluded that the statutory provisions did not support the establishment of a counterclaim, set-off, or cross-demand in the circumstances presented. The court found that the statutory language was clear and did not allow for the appellant's claims. The court also considered the respondent's position and concluded that there were no grounds for allowing the counterclaim or set-off. Consequently, the court dismissed the appellant's claims and upheld the respondent's position.

The court ordered that the appellant's claims for a counterclaim, set-off, or cross-demand against the respondent were dismissed, and the respondent was not required to offset any amounts owed by him to the appellant against the debts owed by the appellant to the respondent. The court's decision was final, and no further appeals were permitted.

Orders