Deputy Commission of Taxation v Robert Graham Douglas Hill [1980] FCA 161

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S.A. No. G13 of 1980 GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF INSOLVENCY OF THE TATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA RALRCISING FEDSRAL JURISDICTION IN BANKRUFLCY

BETWEEN: ROBERT GRAHAM DOUGLAS HILL Appellant and THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Respondent ORDER JUDGES : Northrop, Deane, McGregor, JJ. DATE: 14 October 1980 WHERE MADE: Adelaide

ORDER: The appeal be dismissed with costs.

\

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S.A. No. G13 of 1980 GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF INSOLVENCY OF THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA EXERCISING FEDERAL JURISDICTI IN BANKRUPTCY

BETWEEN: ROBERT GRAHAM DOUGLAS HILL Appellant

and

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Respondent

NORTHROP, DEANE, McGREGOR, JJ. EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT 14 OCTOBER 1980

Se TE RE EET A FO AE Se mame

NORTHROP J: This 1s an appeal from the Court of Insolvency of the State of South Australia, his Honour Judge Rogerson, exercising federal jurisdiction in bankruptcy. His Honour refused to set aside a bankruptcy notice which had been served upon the appellant requiring the appellant to pay, secure or compound the sum of $10,450.39 payable under a judgment of the Local Court of Adelaide delivered in May 1978 1n an action commenced in 1976 in favour of the respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. The appellant had, in accordance with section 40(1) (g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 filed an affidavit claiming that he had a counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand against the respondent in the amount of $15,000. His Honour found that he was not satisfied that there was any basis for the alleged counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand.

The appellant appeals against the substance of his Honour's findings. He also appeals on the ground that his Honour was 1n error in refusing an application for an adjournment of the proceedings which had been made to him. By ground 2 of the further grounds of appeal, the appellant raised as an issue the question of whether the Registrar-1in-Bankruptcy was purporting to exercise judicial powers which he in law was not empowered to exercise. At the beginning of the hearing ef the appeal the appellant withdrew that ground of appeal and accordingly no notice was required to be given under section 78B Judiciary Act 1903. During the course of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant withdrew ground 7 of the grounds of appeal.