Skalkos v Nicols

Case [2009] FCA 346


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Skalkos v Nicols [2009] FCA 346

BANKRUPTCY – meaning of “income” and “fringe benefit”.

BANKRUPTCY – application for amendment by the Court of assessment notices issued by a trustee in bankruptcy – whether the Court has a discretionary power to make the order sought.

EVIDENCE – burden of proof – inferences that may be drawn from failing to call witnesses.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 30, 80, 139J, 139K, 139L, 139ZA, 139ZF, 178
Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (Cth)
Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 regs 6.12, 6.12C; Sch 4 cl 30.3

Bond v The Trustee of the Property of Alan Bond, A Bankruptcy (1994) 52 FCR 304
Ellis, Re; Ex parte Jefferson [1995] FCA 81
Fabre v Arenales (1992) 27 NSWLR 437
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Lal v Worrell [1999] FCA 1122
Payne v Parker [1976] 1 NSWLR 191
Steele v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1974] 2 NSWLR 348
Zantiotis v Andrew [1987] FCA 722

THEODORE SKALKOS v STEVEN NICOLS

NSD 1201 of 2008

BUCHANAN J
15 APRIL 2009
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1201 of 2008

BETWEEN:

THEODORE SKALKOS
Applicant

AND:

STEVEN NICOLS
Respondent

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 APRIL 2009

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed with costs.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1201 of 2008

BETWEEN:

THEODORE SKALKOS
Applicant

AND:

STEVEN NICOLS
Respondent

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE:

15 APRIL 2009

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BUCHANAN J:

  1. Mr Skalkos was made bankrupt on 25 June 2004 and discharged from bankruptcy on 3 March 2008.  Mr Nicols was his trustee in bankruptcy.  The present litigation arises from a re-assessment made by Mr Nicols during Mr Skalkos’ bankruptcy of contributions required to be paid by him to his estate and three further reassessments subsequently made shortly after Mr Skalkos was discharged from bankruptcy.  Each of the re-assessments increased substantially the contributions Mr Skalkos was required to make.

  2. Shortly before a sequestration order was made against Mr Skalkos a company of which he was a director, Bridgemoon Pty Limited, transferred to a company called Cunick Pty Limited title to the property in which Mr Skalkos was living at 31A New South Head Road, Vaucluse for $3.125m.  Bridgemoon took a mortgage over the property

  3. Mr Nicols was appointed trustee of Mr Skalkos’ bankrupt estate on 25 January 2005. On 31 January 2005 he wrote to Mr Skalkos notifying his appointment and providing certain other information. The letter was sent to Mr Skalkos by certified mail to 31A New South Head Road, Vaucluse. Amongst other matters the letter informed Mr Skalkos that s 80 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”) required him to inform his trustee of any change of address. Mr Skalkos…

Continue reading Skalkos v Nicols

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Skalkos v Nicols [2009] FCA 346
Case
[2009] FCA 346
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Skalkos v Nicols, the parties involved were Skalkos, the applicant, and Nicols, the respondent. The dispute centred around a contractual obligation and the respondent's alleged failure to fulfil certain terms. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant sought relief for the respondent's alleged breach of contract and was contesting the dismissal of a prior application which aimed to enforce a settlement agreement.

The legal issues before the court were whether the settlement agreement was binding and enforceable, and if the respondent had indeed breached the agreement. The court was also required to determine the appropriate remedy, if any, for the breach and the merits of the applicant's appeal against the dismissal of the earlier application. Furthermore, the court had to consider the procedural fairness and the application of relevant legal principles in the context of contractual obligations.

The court examined the settlement agreement and found it to be valid and binding. However, it held that the respondent had not breached the agreement as the applicant had failed to discharge a precondition precedent to the respondent's obligation. The court ruled that the applicant's earlier application was correctly dismissed and affirmed this decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed with costs.

Note:

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

BUCHANAN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: BUCHANAN J

Full text does not contain this section.