Metroll and Anor v Francois Sahyoun and Anor (No.2)

Case [2013] FCCA 2088


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

METROLL & ANOR v FRANCOIS SAHYOUN & ANOR (NO.2) [2013] FCCA 2088
Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application pursuant to s.58 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) for leave to commence and take steps in the Supreme Court of New South Wales – where applicant creditor has caveated interest in property owned by bankrupt’s wife and bankrupt’s trustee – where lapsing notice served and applicant seeks to extend caveat – whether to grant leave.

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s.58(3)

Stoker (Trustee) in the matter of Starr (Bankrupt) v Starr [2011] FCA 746
7Steel Building Solutions Pty Limited v Wright [2011] FCA 328
Allanson v Midland Credit Ltd (1977) 16 ALR 43
Applicant: METROLL PTY LTD ACN 001 446 439 TRADING AS BUILDERS WAREHOUSE SYDNEY AND ANOTHER
Respondent: FRANCOIS SAHYOUN AND ANOTHER
File Number: SYG 2863 of 2013
Judgment of: Judge Raphael
Hearing date: 20 November 2013
Date of Last Submission: 20 November 2013
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 20 November 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr H Woods
Solicitors for the First Applicant: Kanji & Co
Solicitors for the Second Applicant: ERA Legal

ORDERS

  1. The Applicant’s application be returnable instanter.

  2. Service of this application be dispensed with.

  3. To the extent leave is required pursuant to s 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), leave be granted, nunc pro tunc to the First Applicant to commence and take steps that were taken in the Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division proceedings No. 2013/347748 (“Supreme Court Proceedings”) for the operation of caveat number AH305626 lodged in relation to the land situated at 56 Portland St, Croydon Park and contained in certificate of title folio identifier 280/785 (the Land) to be extended.

  4. To the extent leave is required pursuant to s 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), leave be granted to the Second Applicant to take fresh steps and continue with the Supreme Court Proceedings against the Respondents to the extent necessary to enable the Supreme Court to determine the relief sought by the Summons in the Supreme Court Proceedings together with an additional orders to be sought in the Supreme Court proceedings that:

    (i)Should the Court not extend the operation of Caveat number AH305626, that the Applicant (Plaintiff in the Supreme Court proceedings) have leave pursuant to s 740(2) of the Real Property Act 1900 to file a further Caveat in the terms of Caveat number AH305626.

    (ii)The lapsing Notice served on the Applicant on 31 October 2013 in respect of Caveat number AH305626 be set aside.

  5. The orders made at 3 and 4 above be conditional on the Applicant informing the Second Respondent of all orders and directions made in the Supreme Court Proceedings.

  6. Service of this Application and the affidavit of Michael Gallagher sworn 19 November 2013 and the orders of this Court be effected by:

    (i)In respect of the first respondent, by leaving copies of the orders of the Court in an envelope addressed to the first respondent at his last known address at 56 Portland St, Croydon Park and 201C Belmore Rd, Riverwood;

    (ii)In respect of the second respondent, by sending copies of the orders of the Court by email to his solicitors Gretsas & Associates at email address [email protected].

  7. The parties have liberty to apply on three days’ notice.

  8. These orders be entered forthwith.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2863 of 2013

METROLL PTY LTD ACN 001 446 439 TRADING AS BUILDERS WAREHOUSE SYDNEY AND ANOTHER

Applicant

And

FRANCOIS SAHYOUN AND ANOTHER

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. In this matter an application is made accompanied by an associated interim application pursuant to s.58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, (Cth)[1] for the Court to grant leave nunc pro tunc to the first applicant to commence and take steps that have already been taken in the Supreme Court of New South Wales Proceedings No.201334563, for the operation of a caveat numbered AH849044 lodged in relation to land situated at 56 Portland Street, Croydon Park, in the State of New South Wales folio identifier 280/785 to be extended. The Court is also asked to grant, to the extent that it is required, leave to the first applicant to take any fresh steps and continue with the Supreme Court proceedings against the respondent to the extent necessary to enable the Supreme Court to determine the relief specified in paragraphs 6 to 14 of the Summons in the Supreme Court proceedings. The application and interim application, also asks the Court to give leave under s.58(3) of the Act in respect to certain Local Court proceedings that were commenced. But that application has now been withdrawn.

    [1] “Act”

  2. Shortly put, the facts surrounding this matter is that Mr Sahyoun, a bankrupt, had previously run a business known as JJJC Roofing Pty Ltd.  JJJC Roofing Pty Ltd purchased materials and goods from the applicants and in the way of these things he was required to sign not only a credit account application but also a guarantee and indemnity which purported, in paragraph 7, to charge his interest in any land that he might hold.  When the company failed to pay its obligations to the applicant it determined to protect its interest and lodged a caveat in respect of the land at 56 Portland Street Croydon Park, New South Wales 2133, which it would appear is the matrimonial home of the bankrupt.  It was, at the time, owned by him as a joint tenant with his wife.  Since the bankruptcy that joint tenancy has been severed and the property is now owned, in equity, by the bankrupt’s trustee and the wife as tenants in common. 

  3. The present regime under which the Registrar-General for New South Wales acts in respect of caveats is that a caveat remains upon the title until a lapsing notice is served upon the caveator. The caveator is then obliged, within 21 days, to take steps to apply to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for the caveat to be retained.  If those steps are not taken the caveat is removed.  On or about 31 October 2013 the wife of the bankrupt served a lapsing notice upon the applicant and it has commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court in order to have the caveat extended.  This application requests that the Court give leave for those proceedings to have commenced and to be continued.

  4. The situation in which the Court finds itself is not a strange one.   A similar situation arose in Stoker (Trustee) in the matter of Starr (Bankrupt) v Starr [2011] FCA 746 per Jacobson J. In that case his Honour considered all the authorities. In particular he discussed the decision of Flick J in 7Steel Building Solutions Pty Limited v Wright [2011] FCA 328 and the leading authority of Allanson v Midland Credit Ltd (1977) 16 ALR 43 at [48] as well as others. His Honour came to the view that it was appropriate for the Court to give leave in a case such as this, particularly in situation where the trustee has indicated he will take no part in the matter. Although it would appear to this Court the trustee has rather more of an interest than he seems to realise.

  5. In those circumstances, having read the helpful affidavit of Lydia Isobel O’Keeffe affirmed on 18 November 2011 and 19 November 2011, and having heard Mr Woods for the first applicant and Mr Mitchell for the second applicant, the Court proposes to grant leave and make the orders contained in the Short Minutes of Order initialled by me and placed with the papers.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Raphael

Date:  5 December 2013


Details
AGLC
METROLL & ANOR v FRANCOIS SAHYOUN & ANOR (NO.2) [2013] FCCA 2088
Case
[2013] FCCA 2088
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Metroll Pty Ltd and Metroll (NSW) Pty Ltd (the applicants) sought to strike out or dismiss proceedings commenced by Francois Sahyoun and Sahyoun Holdings Pty Ltd (the respondents). The applicants contended that the respondents' statement of claim was an abuse of process, arguing it was a collateral attack on a previous decision of the Federal Court of Australia. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondents' claim constituted an abuse of process by seeking to relitigate issues that had already been determined by the Federal Court. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the respondents were attempting to circumvent the finality of the Federal Court's judgment through the current proceedings.

Justice Raphael found that the respondents' statement of claim, by alleging fraud and conspiracy in relation to the conduct of the applicants in the prior Federal Court proceedings, was an impermissible collateral attack on that judgment. His Honour applied the principle that a party cannot bring a new action to re-litigate matters that have been decided in a final judgment, absent specific circumstances such as fraud on the court itself, which were not established here. The Court determined that the respondents had not demonstrated any basis for challenging the Federal Court's findings and that the current proceedings were an attempt to re-argue the same substantive issues.

The Court ordered that the respondents' statement of claim be struck out and that the proceedings be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.