EASTICK V. A.N.Z. BANKING GROUP

ed Ragintrs

ROBERT FRANK EASTICK

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED

JUDGMENT GIBBS C.J.

(Oral)

ROBERT FRANK EASTICK

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court affirming a decision of Mr Justice Lockhart who declared that the Court was not satisfied that the debtor, the present appellant, has a counter-claim, set- off or cross-demand, within the meaning of s.41(7) and

s.40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

The case was one in which the respondent Bank obtained in the Supreme Court of New South Wales judgment against the appellant in the sum of $38,712.67 together with interest. The judgment was upon a guarantee given in respect of the indebtedness to the Bank of a company, of which the appellant was a director, and to which, for ease of reference, I shall refer as Daltons. The judgment was obtained upon a motion for summary judgment before a Master. An appeal was brought to a judge of the Supreme Court and thereafter to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court and those appeals were dismissed. The appellant appeared in person before the

Master but on both appeals he was represented by counsel.

The present proceedings arise out of a bankruptcy notice which was directed to the appellant and was founded on the judgment debt. The question that arose under s.40(1)(g) was whether the appellant had satisfied the Court that he had a counter-claim, set-off, or cross-demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt. The question also arose whether any reason had been shown to go behind the judgment of the Supreme Court which, as I have mentioned, was not a default judgment and had twice been affirmed on appeal. In those circumstances, of course, a Court of Bankruptcy would only be justified in going behind the judgment if substantial reasons existed for doubting whether