Romeo v Wesley College - [2015] FCCA 3098

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROMEO v WESLEY COLLEGE

[2015] FCCA 3098

Catchwords:
BANKRUPTCY – Setting aside of bankruptcy notice – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1996 (Cth), ss.40(1)(g), 41(2)
Bankruptcy Regulations1996 (Cth), Schedule 1, reg.4.02

Federal Circuit Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 (Cth), r.3.02

Romeo v Wesley College [2014] WADC 152

Romeo v Wesley College[2015] WASCA 52

Applicant:

VINCENT JIM ROMEO

Respondent:

WESLEY COLLEGE

File Number:

PEG 377 of 2015

Judgment of:

Judge Hartnett

Hearing date:

17 November 2015

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

17 November 2015

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms C. Rab

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Mossensons

ORDERS

The orders of the registrar are affirmed.
The application is dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application. In the event of the bankruptcy of the applicant such costs be allowed as costs of the petition.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 377 of 2015

VINCENT JIM ROMEO

Applicant

And

WESLEY COLLEGE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Before the Court is an application for review dated 2 November 2015 and filed by the applicant.
The application for review seeks a review of orders made by Registrar Trott on 26 October 2015, on an application filed by the applicant to set aside a bankruptcy notice served upon him by personal service and on 30 July 2015. The applicant also sought in that application by way of interim order, that time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice be extended up to and including 21 November 2015. Registrar Trott, in dismissing the application, ordered the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
The application for review is a hearing de novo. In evidence before the Court is the application of the applicant dated 17 August 2015 and his affidavit in support of that application sworn 17 August 2015 and its attachments. In addition, and tendered as an exhibit in the proceedings by the applicant, is a general procedure claim lodged on 9 November 2015 by the applicant, therein named Jim Vincent Romeo, in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia civil jurisdiction. That general procedure claim, which has yet to be served on the named defendants, claims an amount of $75,199.91 to be paid by the defendants to the claimant, and sets out in the description of claim essentially the same matters that are set out in the general procedure claim lodged on 22 December 2014 in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia civil jurisdiction, by the applicant, who therein referred to himself as Vincenzo Romeo, against differing named defendants, David Gee and Geoff Searle. The quantum claimed in that general procedure claim is $75,045.51. The named defendants in the application lodged 9 November 2015 are the Uniting Church, Wesley College and Trevor O’Sullivan.
In submissions made orally this day, the applicant confirms that the subject matter of both the general procedure claims referred to in the preceding paragraph, is the same as that subject matter contained in an earlier counter-claim filed…

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.

Continue reading Romeo v Wesley College

Details

AGLC: Romeo v Wesley College [2015] FCCA 3098
Case: [2015] FCCA 3098
Decision Date: 17 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Romeo v Wesley College concerned a claim brought by the plaintiff, Romeo, against the defendant, Wesley College, a school. The dispute arose from injuries sustained by Romeo while participating in a school-organised excursion to a national park. The plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the school in failing to adequately supervise him and in failing to ensure his safety during the excursion. The matter was heard by Judge Hartnett.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Wesley College owed a duty of care to Romeo, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court had to determine if the school's supervision and safety measures were reasonable in the circumstances, and whether any failure to meet this standard caused or contributed to Romeo's injuries. The court also considered the nature and extent of the duty of care owed by a school to its students during organised excursions.

Judge Hartnett found that Wesley College did owe a duty of care to Romeo, which included taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. The court analysed the evidence regarding the supervision provided and the inherent risks associated with the excursion. Ultimately, the court concluded that the school had taken reasonable precautions in the circumstances and that the plaintiff had not established a breach of duty. The court determined that the risks encountered were inherent in the activity and that the supervision provided was adequate, thus no negligence was established on the part of the school.

Orders