Re Gould; Gould v Day

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gould, in the matter of Gould v Day [1999] FCA 1650

BANKRUPTCY – application to set aside bankruptcy notice – whether debtor has a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand of the kind set out in s 40(1)(g) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss 40(1)(g), 41(6A), 41(7)

Re Gibbs; Ex parte Triscott (1995) 65 FCR 80, cited
Ebert v The Union Trustee Company of Australia Ltd (1960) 104 CLR 346, followed
Re Brink; Ex parte Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Ltd (1980) 30 ALR 433, followed
Crimmins v Glenview Home Units [1999] FCA 515, cited
Bhattacharya v Berger [1999] FCA 883, cited

IN THE MATTER OF STEPHEN GOULD

STEPHEN GOULD v JULIAN DAY & ANOR

N 8023 OF 1999

JULIAN DAY & ANOR v STEPHEN GOULD

N 8054 OF 1999

JUDGE:         SACKVILLE J
PLACE:         SYDNEY
DATE:           24 NOVEMBER 1999


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 8023 OF 1999
N 8054 OF 1999

N 8023 of 1999:

BETWEEN:

STEPHEN GOULD
Applicant

AND:

JULIAN DAY
First Respondent

ALAN MANLY
Second Respondent

N 8054 of 1999:

BETWEEN:                  JULIAN DAY
   First Applicant

ALAN MANLY
   Second Applicant

AND:   STEPHEN GOULD
   Respondent

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 NOVEMBER 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application to set aside bankruptcy notice NN 1632 of 1999, filed by Mr Gould (“the debtor”) on 13 September 1999, be dismissed.

2.   The creditors’ petition filed by Mr Day and Mr Manly (“the creditors”) on 20 September 1999, and amended on 12 October 1999, be struck out.

3.   The notice of motion filed by the creditors on 21 September 1999, which seeks to dismiss the debtor’s application to set aside the bankruptcy notice on the basis that the application is incompetent, be dismissed.

4.   No order as to costs.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 8023 OF 1999
N 8054 OF 1999

N 8023 of 1999:

BETWEEN:

STEPHEN GOULD
Applicant

AND:

JULIAN DAY
First Respondent

ALAN MANLY
Second Respondent

N 8054 of 1999:

BETWEEN:                  JULIAN DAY
   First Applicant

ALAN MANLY
   Second Applicant

AND:   STEPHEN GOULD
   Respondent

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE:

24 NOVEMBER 1999

PLACE:

SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The creditors, Julian Day and Alan Manly, and the debtor, Stephen Gould, are in dispute on a number of fronts.  These proceedings concern an attempt by the creditors to obtain a sequestration order against the estate of the debtor founded on non-compliance with the requirements of a bankruptcy notice.  It is convenient to commence by outlining the principal events.

    The Course of Events

  2. On 2 December 1994, the debtor commenced proceedings in the District Court of New South Wales against each of the creditors and a body designated as “Australian Information Technology Society”.  The debtor’s statement of liquidated claim pleaded causes of action in contract…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Gould; Gould v Day 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
[1999] FCA 1650
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Gould; Gould v Day, the debtor, Mr Gould, sought to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued against him. The creditors, Mr Day and Mr Manly, opposed the application and sought to have the debtor's petition struck out and to dismiss the debtor's application on the basis that it was incompetent. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issues were whether the debtor had grounds to set aside the bankruptcy notice and whether the debtor's application was competent.

The court found that the debtor had not demonstrated any valid grounds for setting aside the bankruptcy notice. The debtor argued that the notice was irregular because it was not served in the prescribed manner and that there were procedural irregularities in the service. However, the court held that the irregularities did not affect the validity of the notice and that the debtor had not shown any prejudice resulting from the irregularities. The court also found that the debtor's application was competent and that the creditors' notice of motion to dismiss the application was premature. Therefore, the debtor's application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was dismissed, and the creditors' petition was struck out. The creditors' notice of motion was also dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to set aside bankruptcy notice NN 1632 of 1999, filed by Mr Gould (“the debtor”) on 13 September 1999, be dismissed.

2. The creditors’ petition filed by Mr Day and Mr Manly (“the creditors”) on 20 September 1999, and amended on 12 October 1999, be struck out.

3. The notice of motion filed by the creditors on 21 September 1999, which seeks to dismiss the debtor’s application to set aside the bankruptcy notice on the basis that the application is incompetent, be dismissed.

4. No order as to costs.

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

It follows that the debtor has not made out the grounds identified by him for setting aside the bankruptcy notice.Conclusion The orders that should be made are as follows:1.The debtor’s application to set aside the bankruptcy notice be dismissed.2.The creditors’ petition be struck out.3.The creditors’ notice of motion seeking to dismiss the debtor’s application to set aside the bankruptcy notice on the basis that the application is incompetent, be dismissed.4.No order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.