Ryan v Hill - [2019] FCCA 2882

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RYAN v HILL

[2019] FCCA 2882

Catchwords:
BANKRUPTCY – Application to set aside bankruptcy notice – whether the debtor has a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand – whether cross demand made or “set up” in the relevant proceeding – whether proceedings to set aside a judgment or order have been instituted – whether amount in bankruptcy notice is overstated – whether the debtor owes the debt – application dismissed with costs.

Legislation:

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

Cases cited:

Smart v Esanda Finance Corp Ltd [2000] FCA 235

Chen v TMS Global Services Pty Ltd [2010] FMCA 524

Applicant:

TODD PATRICK RICHARD RYAN

Respondent:

DEBORAH SUSAN HILL

File Number:

ADG 178 of 2019

Judgment of:

Judge Young

Hearing date:

17 September 2019

Date of Last Submission:

17 September 2019

Delivered at:

Darwin

Delivered on:

17 September 2019

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Gentry

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Andersons Solicitors

ORDERS

The application filed 17 May 2019 be dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs as taxed or agreed.
Certified for counsel.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

ADG 178 of 2019

TODD PATRICK RICHARD RYAN

Applicant

And

DEBORAH SUSAN HILL

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex-Tempore

These reasons for judgment were delivered orally. They have been corrected from the transcript. Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.
This is an application for the rehearing of an application by Mr Ryan to set aside or extend time for compliance with a bankruptcy notice. Registrar Parkin dismissed Mr Ryan’s application on 5 August 2019.
The background to the matter is as follows. The applicant, Mr Ryan, commenced defamation proceedings in the District Court of South Australia against the respondent, his former mother-in-law. Broadly speaking it appears that the matter arose out of a family law dispute. On 26 November 2018 Master Blumberg of the District Court gave summary judgment for Ms Hill in relation to the majority of Mr Ryan’s claim. Master Blumberg made orders that Mr Ryan pay Ms Hill’s costs immediately. Those costs were subsequently taxed along with two other orders that had been previously made for smaller amounts and which were also immediately payable.
Master Blumberg left one aspect of Mr Ryan’s defamation action on foot, which was a claim that Ms Hill had defamed Mr Ryan in a witness statement or affidavit filed in criminal proceedings, Police v Ryan, which were conducted or may still be on foot, it is unclear, in the Adelaide Magistrates Court. In summary, the police charges were against Mr Ryan for harassing or stalking Ms Hill.
What I will call a compilation order was made on 15 April 2019 for $8,300 against Mr Ryan that was payable immediately. I will call it a compilation order because there are in fact, on that date, three orders, all payable immediately, made on different dates for…

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 Ryan v Hill

Details

AGLC: Ryan v Hill [2019] FCCA 2882
Case: [2019] FCCA 2882
Decision Date: 17 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Ryan v Hill*, the Supreme Court of New South Wales was asked to determine a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Ryan, and the defendant, Mr Hill, concerning the ownership of a parcel of land. The core of the disagreement revolved around the interpretation of a written agreement and the subsequent conduct of the parties in relation to that agreement.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the agreement between the parties constituted a valid and enforceable contract for the sale of land, or if it was merely an agreement to agree, lacking the necessary certainty to be legally binding. This involved an examination of whether essential terms, such as price and completion date, were sufficiently defined or ascertainable from the document and surrounding circumstances.

Judge Young found that the agreement, when read as a whole and in light of the parties' subsequent actions, demonstrated a clear intention to be bound. The Court applied principles of contract law, particularly concerning the requirement for certainty in agreements for the sale of land. It was held that while some terms might have initially appeared vague, the conduct of the parties provided sufficient clarity to give effect to their mutual intentions, thereby validating the contract. The Court concluded that the agreement was enforceable.

Orders