Rob Anderson KC appeared on behalf of the respondent, instructed by Watson Webb.
In summary, the applicant sought review of a Judicial Registrar’s refusal to set aside a bankruptcy notice, arguing that he had a cross-demand exceeding the judgment debt because money had been paid into the Supreme Court in related proceedings concerning a caveat over his property. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the money paid into the Supreme Court did not constitute a counterclaim, set-off or cross-demand under s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act. Further, any claims over the applicant’s asserted entitlement to the funds could have been raised in earlier proceedings and the applicant failed to comply with requirements to provide the full details of the alleged cross-demand under r 3.02 of the Bankruptcy Rules. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
