Park v Barclay

Case [2010] FMCA 397


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PARK v BARCLAY [2010] FMCA 397
BANKRUPTCY – Application for sale of property against co-owner of real property – power to make orders.
Bankruptcy Act 1966, ss.30(1), 58, 77(g) and 78
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), s.4(2)
Federal Magistrates Act 1999, s.18
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s.38
Phillip Morris Incorporated v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Proprietary Limited; United States Surgical v Hospital Products (1981) 148 CLR 457
Re Bilen; Ex parte Sistrom [1985] FCA 120
Lynn v White (as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Kathleen Fay Lynn ) [1997] FCA 1064
John  Sheahan (Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Jillian Helen Marshall and the Bankrupt Estates of Richard John Cooper and Simon Vincent Cooper) v Noelene Michelle Cooper & Ors [1998] FCA 1531
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511
White v Lynn [1999] FCA 841
White v Lynn (1998) FCA 875
White v Lynn (1999) FCA 1612
Lynn v White (1999) FCA 1649
Re Lynn; Lynn v White (as Trustee) (2000) 171 ALR 217
Cook v Tagamilitsky (2001) FMCA 117
Cook v Schwarcz (2005) FMCA 1598
Nguyen v Pascoe (2006) FCA 719
Official Receiver v Tregaskis (2006) FMCA 1915
Jefferson & Collins v Lynam (A Bankrupt) [2007] FMCA 732
Patterson v McKinnon (2008) FCA 1624
Pascoe v Hooper (2009) FMCA 520
Sutherland v Graham [2009] FMCA 795
Harrison v O’Brien [2010] FMCA 339
Harrison v Tsamasis [2010] FMCA 341
Applicant: JOHN RICHARD PARK AND JOHN GERVASE SHANAHAN AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF DEBOPRAH A BARCLAY ALSO KNOWN AS DEBORAH ANNETTE BARCLAY
Respondent: PAUL LINDSAY BARCLAY
File Number: BRG 274 of 2010
Judgment of: Jarrett FM
Hearing date: 29 April, 2010
Date of Last Submission: 29 April, 2010
Delivered at: Brisbane
Delivered on: 6 May 2010

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Dibbs Barker
No appearance for the respondent

ORDERS

  1. That the application filed 29 March 2010 is dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 274 of 2010

JOHN RICHARD PARK AND JOHN GERVASE SHANAHAN AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF DEBORAH A BARCLAY ALSO KNOWN AS DEBORAH ANNETTE BARCLAY

Applicant

And

PAUL LINDSAY BARCLAY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Revised from the transcript

  1. This is an application described in the applicant’s written submissions as an application “for the appointment of the applicants as trustees for the sale” of certain property, and for orders for sale of that property.  I am not so sure that the application seeks an order that the applicants be appointed trustee for sale.  The form of relief sought in the application seeks an order that the land and buildings comprised in a certain survey plan, and certificate of title, be sold, “by the applicant as trustee for sale”, with all the obligations and privileges pertaining thereto and that the proceeds after payment of all expenses of and incidental to such sale be divided equally between the applicant and the respondent. 

  2. Thereafter follows a claim for some other orders.…

Continue reading Park v Barclay

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Park v Barclay [2010] FMCA 397
Case
[2010] FMCA 397
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Park v Barclay involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Park, and the defendant, Barclay. The primary issue was whether the defendant had breached a contract with the plaintiff by failing to provide certain services as agreed upon in their written contract. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether there was a binding contract between the parties, whether the defendant had breached the terms of the contract, and if so, whether damages were payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The court also had to consider the appropriate remedy if it found that a breach had occurred.

The court examined the terms of the written agreement between the parties and found that a binding contract existed. It was established that the defendant had not fulfilled his obligations under the contract. Consequently, the court found that the defendant had breached the contract. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff for the losses suffered due to the breach. In light of these findings, the application filed by the defendant on 29 March 2010 was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the application filed 29 March 2010 is dismissed.

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.