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 30.3Bond 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 722THEODORE 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
ApplicantAND: 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
ApplicantAND: STEVEN NICOLS
Respondent
JUDGE:
BUCHANAN J
DATE:
15 APRIL 2009
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BUCHANAN J:
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.
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
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
- AGLC
- Skalkos v Nicols [2009] FCA 346
- Case
- [2009] FCA 346
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: BUCHANAN J
Full text does not contain this section.