NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Skalkos v Smiles and Ors [2006] NSWSC 192
HEARING DATE(S) : 16 March 2006
JUDGMENT DATE : 27 March 2006
JUDGMENT OF : Johnson J at 1
DECISION : The First Defendant's Notice of Motion is dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS : PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application by First Defendant for summary dismissal of proceedings - First Defendant entered into composition under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) - whether claims by Plaintiff against First Defendant are provable debts under s.82 of the Act - whether claims fall within fraud exception in s.153(2)(b) of the Act - meaning of "fraud" in s.153(2)(b) - held that triable issues exist on these questions - application for summary dismissal refused
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) LEGISLATION CITED : Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Civil Procedure Act 2005 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Dey v Victorian Railway Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner of Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598 Brimson v Rocla Concrete Pipes Limited (1982) 2 NSWLR 937 Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552 Wickstead v Browne (1992) 30 NSWLR 1 Esanda Finance Corporation Limited v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1995-1997) 188 CLR 241 Preston v Star City Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 1273 Banque Commerciale SA In Liquidation v Ahkil Holdings Limited (1990) 169 CLR 279 CASES CITED : Jingellic Minerals NL v Abigroup Limited (1992) 7 WAR 566 Co-Ownership Land Development Pty Limited v Queensland Estates Pty Limited (1973) 47 ALJR 519 Coventry v Charter Pacific Corporation Limited [2005] HCA 67; (2005) 80 ALJR 132 Aliferis v Kyriacou (2000) 1 VR 447 Handberg v Smarter Way (Aust) Pty Limited (2002) 190 ALR 130 Chittick v Maxwell (1993) 118 ALR 728 Maxwell v Chittick (Court of Appeal (NSW), 23 August 1994, unreported, BC9402909) Re Bosun Pty Limited (In Liquidation) (2000) 34 ACSR 597; [2000] SASC 180 Reid v Interarch Australia Pty Limited [2000] FCA 1328 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Kritharas (2000) 105 FCR 444 SGB v The Queen (2005) HCA 80
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