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 5Dellios 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 toSLAVICA 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
ApplicantAND: MR GESS RAMBALDI
First RespondentMR 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
ApplicantAND: MR GESS RAMBALDI
First RespondentMR ANDREW YEO
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE:
11 DECEMBER 2009
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
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.
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.
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.
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
- AGLC
- Zegarac v Rambaldi [2009] FCA 1463
- Case
- [2009] FCA 1463
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.