Zdrilic v Hickie - [2015] FCCA 2882

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ZDRILIC & ANOR v HICKIE & ANOR

[2015] FCCA 2882

Catchwords:
BANKRUPTCY – Application for Review of Registrar’s decision – sequestration order made following Orders by Judge Lloyd-Jones dismissing Notice Stating Grounds of Opposition – application to summarily dismiss the Application for Review.

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966, s.52

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act1999, s.17A
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.13.10
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s.31A

Blair v Curran [1939] HCA 23
Carl Zeiss Stifting v Rayner & Keeler Ltd [No. 2] [1967] IAC 853
Hickie & Anor v Zdrilic & Anor [2015] FCCA 1329
Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v For Motor Company of Australia Limited [2008] FCAFC 60
Spalla v St. George Motor Finance Ltd (No. 6) [2004] FCA 1699
Suda Ltd v Sims (No. 3) [2014] FCCA 2127
Tiufino v Warland [2000] NSWCA 110
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378

First Applicant:

SAM ZDRILIC

Second Applicant:

AMY ZDRILIC

First Respondent:

DAVID HICKIE

Second Respondent:

VOCIFA PTY LIMITED ACN 002 076 235

File Number:

SYG 2324 of 2014

Judgment of:

Judge Altobelli

Hearing date:

17 September 2015

Date of Last Submission:

17 September 2015

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

26 November 2015

REPRESENTATION

The First Applicant appeared in person and on behalf of the Second Applicant

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Bartier Perry

ORDERS

The Application for Review filed on 17 June 2015 be dismissed.
The Sequestration Order made against the estates of Sam Zdrilic and Amy Zdrilic on 27 March 2015 be confirmed.
The Creditor’s costs (including any reserved costs and the costs of the present proceedings) be taxed and paid from the estate of the Debtor in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2324 of 2014

SAM ZDRILIC

First Applicant

AMY ZDRILIC

Second Applicant

And

DAVID HICKIE

First Respondent

VOCIFA PTY LIMITED ACN 002 076 235

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

These reasons for judgment explain why the Court has dismissed an Application for Review filed by the Applicants on 17 June 2015.

Background

On 27 May 2015, a Registrar of this Court made sequestration Orders relating to the Applicants, ordered them to pay costs, but otherwise stayed the Orders for 21 days.
The Application for Review of the learned Registrar’s Orders was filed on 17 June 2015.
On 29 July 2015 the Respondent filed the present Application for Orders dismissing the Application for Review.
This matter has an extensive litigation history dating back to 2001. Reproduced in the first schedule to these reasons is a litigation chronology prepared by those representing the Respondents. It largely speaks for itself. The Applicants for review have suffered spectacular failures in their litigation before the Supreme Court (including the NSW Court of Appeal), Federal Court, High Court and this Court.
Perhaps the most recent comprehensive discourse about the litigation history in this matter is set out in the reasons for judgment of Judge Lloyd-Jones in Hickie & Anor…

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 Zdrilic v Hickie

Details

AGLC: Zdrilic v Hickie [2015] FCCA 2882
Case: [2015] FCCA 2882
Decision Date: 26 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Zdrilic v Hickie* concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Zdrilic, and the defendant, Mr. Hickie, in the District Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10 March 2018. The accident involved a collision between the plaintiff's motorcycle and the defendant's vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's negligent driving caused the accident and his subsequent injuries.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and, if so, whether that duty was breached. The court was required to assess the evidence presented by both parties to establish the cause of the accident and the extent of the plaintiff's injuries. Specifically, the court had to consider the actions of both drivers in the moments leading up to the collision and whether those actions met the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver in the circumstances.

In reaching its decision, Judge Altobelli applied the principles of negligence under common law. The court found that the defendant had breached his duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to keep a proper lookout and by failing to give way when required. This breach was determined to be the direct cause of the accident and the plaintiff's injuries. The court considered the evidence of witness statements and expert reports to support its findings regarding the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's damages.

The court ordered that the defendant pay damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $150,000, representing compensation for his injuries, loss of earnings, and other related expenses.

Orders