Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS
BANKRUPTCY - Dismissal of creditors petition - whether earlier dismissal by consent of application to set aside bankruptcy notice created an issue estoppel as to whether true debt underlying judgment - discussion of issues for determination on application to set aside bankruptcy notice and on hearing of creditors petition - issues not the same - whether exercise of Court's discretion to go behind judgment necessarily a two stage process. ISSUE ESTOPPEL - Application dismissed by consent - interlocutory proceedings - application of Anshun principle. EVIDENCE - Application to admit fresh evidence on appeal - power of Court - appellant taken by surprise at trial - deliberate course taken not to adduce the evidence - objections on grounds of lateness and inadmissibility not taken or not pressed at trial. Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth): s27 Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth): ss40(1)(g), 44, 52 Federal Court Rules: O1 rll, O52, r36. Bankruptcy Rules: O41. Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464; applied. Boral Johns Perry Industry Pty Ltd v Piccardi (unreported, Full Court, Wilcox, Burchett & Hill JJ, 23 June 1989); referred. Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Raynor & Keeler Ltd (No 3) [1970] Ch 506; considered. Corney v Bryan (1951) 84 CLR 343; referred. Council of the City of Greater Wollongong v Cowan (1954) 93 CLR 435; applied. Olivieri v Stafford (1980) 24 FCR 423; applied. Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 509; considered. Re Australasian Meat Industry Employees; Union (WA Branch); Ex parte Ferguson (1986) 67 ALR 491; referred. Re Flateau; Ex parte Scotch Whisky Distillers Ltd (1888) 22 QBD 83; referred. Re Isabell v Reginald St Leon; Ex parte National Australia Bank Ltd (unreported, Lindgren J, 16 December 1994); discussed. Re Neal (1994) 123 ALR 614; distinguished. Re Sterling; Ex parte Esanda Ltd (1980) 44 FLR 125; followed. In re Vitoria; Ex parte Vitoria [1894] 2 QB 387; followed. Taylor v Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 16 FCR 212; followed. Totterdell v Nelson (1990) 26 FCR 523; applied. Wilkinson v Osborne (1915) 21 CLR 89; referred. Whitemark Pty Ltd v Cann Australia Pty Ltd (unreported, French J, 31 March 1993); questioned. Wolff v Donovan (1991) 29 FCR 480; referred. JACQUES EZZAT MAKHOUL v ROBYN BARNES also known as ROBYN LESLEY MAKHOUL No QG 86 of 1995 CORAM: Hill, Cooper & Branson JJ PLACE: Sydney (Heard in Brisbane) DATED: 24 November 1995
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate