Truthful Endeavour Pty Ltd v Condon

Link copied
Case Copied 63 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Truthful Endeavour Pty Ltd v Condon (Trustee), in the matter of Rayhill (Bankrupt) [2015] FCAFC 70

Citation: Truthful Endeavour Pty Ltd v Condon (Trustee), in the matter of Rayhill (Bankrupt) [2015] FCAFC 70
Appeal from: Condon (Trustee), in the matter of Rayhill (Bankrupt) v Truthful Endeavour Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 7
Parties: TRUTHFUL ENDEAVOUR PTY LTD ACN 155 107 734 v SCHON GREGORY CONDON (AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF COLLEEN ANNE RAYHILL)
File number: NSD 127 of 2015
Judges: ALLSOP CJ, KATZMANN AND GLEESON JJ
Date of Orders: 7 May 2015
Date of Reasons:

26 May 2015
Catchwords:

ESTOPPEL ‑‑ whether respondent’s conduct in earlier Supreme Court proceedings gave rise to an Anshun estoppel such that the originating application in this Court was an abuse of process  whether primary judge erred in finding respondent’s conduct not unreasonable ‑‑ the application of Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45; 147 CLR 589

BANKRUPTCY ‑‑ originating application brought by trustee in bankruptcy asserting an equitable lien over property or a constructive or resulting trust to secure payment of sums paid on behalf of the bankrupt in relation to the acquisition of the property ‑‑  jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the State Supreme Courts ‑‑ consideration of Gorkowski v Turner [2014] VSC 200; 285 FLR 66 ‑‑ application of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) ‑‑ “special federal matter”

Legislation:

Commonwealth Constitution ss 75, 76 and 77

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 9
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 5, 27, 31, 35, 35A, 58, 77A, 77C and 116
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 56
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M and 37N
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 39 and 39B
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) ss 3, 4 and 6
Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic)

Cases cited: ACTEW Corporation Ltd v Pangallo [2002] FCAFC 325; 127 FCR 1
Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1995] FCA 1299; 57 FCR 287
Champerslife Pty Ltd v Manojlovski [2010] NSWCA 33; 75 NSWLR 245
DAO v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 63; 278 ALR 765
Federated Engine Drivers’ and Firemen’s Association of Australasia  v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1911] HCA 31; 12 CLR 398
Felton v Mulligan [1971] HCA 39; 124 CLR 367
Gorkowski v Turner [2014] VSC 200; 285 FLR 66
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313
Hopkins v Governor-General of Australia [2013] NSWCA 365; 303 ALR 157
Hooper v Kirella Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1584; 96 FCR 1
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1
Khatri v Price [1999] FCA 1289; 95 FCR 287
Lewis v Condon [2013] NSWSC 120
Lewis v Condon (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 126
Lewis v Condon [2013] NSWCA 204; 85 NSWLR 99
Ling v Commonwealth [1996] FCA 669; 68 FCR 180
LNC Industries Ltd v BMW (Australia)…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Truthful Endeavour Pty Ltd v Condon 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
[2015] FCAFC 70
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Truthful Endeavour Pty Ltd v Condon, the dispute involved the respondent's conduct in earlier Supreme Court proceedings and its potential to give rise to an Anshun estoppel, rendering the originating application in the Federal Court an abuse of process. Additionally, the court examined whether the primary judge was correct in determining that the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable. This matter was determined in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the respondent's actions in the earlier Supreme Court proceedings constituted an Anshun estoppel, and if so, whether this meant that the originating application in the Federal Court was an abuse of process. The court also had to consider whether the primary judge was correct in finding that the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable, taking into account the case of Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd.

The court found that the respondent's conduct in the earlier Supreme Court proceedings did not give rise to an Anshun estoppel, and therefore, the originating application in the Federal Court was not an abuse of process. Furthermore, the court held that the primary judge was correct in finding that the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable. The court reached this conclusion by applying the principles set out in the Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd case.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered that costs be paid, as per Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

ALLSOP CJ, KATZMANN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: ALLSOP CJ, KATZMANN J

Full text does not contain this section.