Re Rounsefell, Dennis frederick v Ex Parte Bickford, John Lindsay [1997] FCA 10

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA No QG 7056 of 1997 GENERAL DIVISION BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND RE: DENNIS FREDERICK ROUNSEFELL Applicant EX PARTE: JOHN LINDSAY BICKFORD Respondent CORAM: Drummond J DATE: 26 May 1997 PLACE: Brisbane MINUTES OF ORDERS THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to this application, save only for the costs of the hearing on 14 April 1997.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA No QG 7056 of 1997 GENERAL DIVISION BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND RE: DENNIS FREDERICK ROUNSEFELL Applicant EX PARTE: JOHN LINDSAY BICKFORD Respondent CORAM: Drummond J DATE: 26 May 1997 PLACE: Brisbane REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application by Mr Rounsefell to set aside the bankruptcy notice issued by his former solicitors, Bickfords, based upon a judgment for professional fees. It is common ground that the fees in question were rendered in respect of work done by Bickfords in connection with a trust of which Mr Rounsefell was a trustee.

Mr Rounsefell contends that he has a cross demand of a kind referred to in s 40(1)(g) the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) arising from what he says is negligent advice given by Bickfords in connection with a specific activity of the trust. He points to a letter of 23 February 1994 which Bickfords directed to him in reference to a loan agreement proposed to be entered into by Mr Rounsefell and a further person as his co-trustee of the trust, Mr Douglas Carsburg. Bickfords wrote: