Zegarac v Rambaldi

Case [2009] FCA 1463


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Zegarac v Rambaldi [2009] FCA 1463

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – motion to summarily dismiss proceeding – whether a sequestration order ought to have been made – whether proceeding is frivolous or vexatious –  proceeding dismissed

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 153B(1)
Federal Court Rules O 20 r 5

Dellios v Zegarac [2006] FCA 1733, referred to

Dellios v Zegarac (No 2) [2006] FCA 1831, referred to
General Steel Industries Inc. v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, cited
Transcript of Proceedings, Zegarac v Paul Dellios t/as Dellios West & Co (High Court of Australia, Gummow J, 6 September 2007), referred to
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378, cited
Zegarac v Dellios [2005] VSC 264, referred to
Zegarac v Dellios [2006] FMCA 34, referred to

SLAVICA ZEGARAC v MR GESS RAMBALDI and MR ANDREW YEO

VID 518 of 2009

TRACEY J

11 DECEMBER 2009

MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 518 of 2009

BETWEEN:

SLAVICA ZEGARAC
Applicant

AND:

MR GESS RAMBALDI
First Respondent

MR ANDREW YEO
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 DECEMBER 2009

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The title of the proceeding be amended by substituting Mr Gess Rambaldi and Mr Andrew Yeo as respondents in place of Pitcher Partners.

2.The proceeding be dismissed.

3.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

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

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 518 of 2009

BETWEEN:

SLAVICA ZEGARAC
Applicant

AND:

MR GESS RAMBALDI
First Respondent

MR ANDREW YEO
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE:

11 DECEMBER 2009

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Ms Slavica Zegarac became bankrupt on 18 May 2006.  A sequestration order was made by a Registrar on the petition of Mr Paul Dellios (trading as Dellios West & Co).  That order was based on a judgment given by the Magistrate’s Court of Victoria dated 26 April 2005.  An appeal against the decision of the Magistrate was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28 June 2005:  see Zegarac v Dellios [2005] VSC 264.

  2. Mr Gess Rambaldi and Mr Andrew Yeo were appointed joint and several trustees of the bankrupt estate of Ms Zegarac.  They are members of the firm Pitcher Partners. 

  3. On 12 October 2005, Ms Zegarac applied to the Federal Magistrates Court for an order setting aside the bankruptcy notice on the ground that she had a counter claim, set-off or cross demand against Mr Dellios which exceeded the amount of the debt owed to him.  On 16 December 2005, Federal Magistrate Phipps dismissed the application.  He provided reasons for that decision on 19 January 2006: see Zegarac v Dellios [2006] FMCA 34.

  4. On 13 December 2006, Marshall J refused an application for leave to appeal…

Continue reading Zegarac v Rambaldi

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Zegarac v Rambaldi [2009] FCA 1463
Case
[2009] FCA 1463
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings were brought by the plaintiff, Zegarac, against the defendants, originally named as Pitcher Partners, a firm of accountants. The plaintiff sought compensation for professional negligence in the preparation of tax returns. The case was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendants were subsequently substituted as Gess Rambaldi and Andrew Yeo, individual accountants who were partners in the firm at the relevant time. The central dispute was whether the accountants were negligent in the preparation of the plaintiff’s tax returns, and if so, whether this negligence caused financial loss to the plaintiff.

The court was required to determine whether the accountants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, whether there was a breach of that duty, and if the breach caused the plaintiff's financial loss. A key issue was the standard of care expected of accountants in preparing tax returns and whether the accountants’ actions fell below this standard. Another issue was causation, specifically whether any negligence directly resulted in the plaintiff's financial loss.

The court held that the accountants did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case, as the plaintiff had not relied on the accountants' advice when making financial decisions. Consequently, the court found that there was no breach of duty, and no financial loss caused by any such breach. As a result, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The title of the proceeding be amended by substituting Mr Gess Rambaldi and Mr Andrew Yeo as respondents in place of Pitcher Partners.

2. The proceeding be dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding.

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

Full text does not contain this section.