Eastick, Robert Frank v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1981] FCA 77

Master of the Supreme Court. Subsequent appeals by the

appellant to a Judge of the Supreme Court and, thereafter, to

the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court were dismissed.

On 25 November, 1980, a bankruptcy notice directed to the appellant and founded on the judgment debt issued at the request of the respondent. The notice was a fourteen day notice. It was served on the appellant on 28 November, 1980. On 11 December, 1980, the debtor filed an affidavit to which was annexed a draft Statement of Claim which it was said was proposed to be filed forthwith in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The draft Statement of Claim named the appellant as plaintiff and the respondent as defendant and sought, inter alia, damages in the amount of $38,712.67. This affidavit was plainly intended to be filed pursuant to the provisions of s.41(7) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1966 ("the Act") and to be an affidavit of the kind referred to in that sub-section. As such, the affidavit was intended to raise for the consideration of the Court the issue propounded by

"(g) iff a creditor who has obtained against the debtor a final judgment or final order, beang a judgment or order the execution of which has not been stayed, has served on the debtor in Australia or, by leave of the Court, elsewhere, a bankruptcy notice under this Act and the debtor does not --

(i) where the notice was served in Australia - within the time fixed by the Registrar by whom the notice was issued;

comply with the requirements of the notice or satisfy the Court that he has a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt or sum payable under the final order, as the case may be, being a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand that he could not have set up in the action or proceeding in which the judgment or order was obtained;"

"Where, before the expiration of the time fixed for compliance with the requirements of a bankruptcy notice, the debtor has filed with the Registrar an affidavit to the effect that he has such a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand as is referred to in paragraph 40(1)(g), and the Court has not, before the expiration of that time, determined whether it is satisfied that the debtor has such a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand, that time shall be deemed to have been extended, immediately before its expiration, until and including the day on which the Court determines whether it is so satisfied."

The matter came before Lockhart J. on 20 March, 1981. A considerable body of evidence, in addition to the affidavit of 11 December, 1980 and the annexed draft Statement of Claim, was before his Honour. His Honour, in an ex tempore judgment, reached the positive conclusion that he was satisfied that the appellant did not have a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand of the kind referred

to in s.41(7) and s.40(1)(g) of the Act. In the result, his

Honour made a declaration to the effect that he was not satisfied that the appellant had any such counter-claim, set-off or cross demand and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the application including reserved costs. The appellant, who appeared in person, appeals to

The starting point of the appellant's argument that he has a counter-~-claim, set-off or cross demand which exceeds or equals the amount of the judgment debt and which could not

'be set up in the Supreme Court proceedings is to be found in the provisions of the Deed of Guarantee in pursuance of which those proceedings were brought. That Deed provided, inter alia, that a certificate signed by any officer of the defendant would be conclusive evidence of the amount of the principal debtor's indebtedness to the respondent. The judgment of the Master was, at least to some extent, based upon such a certificate. The appellant contends that, by reason of the certificate, he was precluded in the Supreme Court proceedings from challenging that the principal debtor owed any moneys to the appellant or the amount of such indebtedness. He suggests that he has the following claims

(a) A claim in the amount of $6938.50 and interest representing an amount which he had paid to the respondent to be applied by the respondent in reduction of the overdraft account of the principal debtor and which was

(b) An action against the respondent in fraud. The fraud alleged is a fraudulent giving of the certificate as to indebtedness which was used in the Supreme Court proceedings. In this regard, the allegation apparently is that the certificate fraudulently mis-stated the amount owing by the principal debtor. At times, the appellant in his submissions before this Court, also referred to a claim based on "fraudulent evidence" before the Supreme

(c) An action in negligence based on the negligent giving of the relevant certificate.

We shall briefly consider these alleged claims in the order

As regards the suggested claim arising out of the respondent's failure to credit the principal debtor's account with the amount of the alleged payment of $6938.50, Lockhart

before the Master to show that the question of actual indebtedness of the debtor to the creditor and, indeed, as to the circumstances surrounding the payment of $6938.50 to the creditor, the subject of alleged cross-action, was before the Master and litigated. Indeed, questions were addressed by the debtor himself who conducted his own case to witnesses called on behalf of the creditor. Thus it seems to me the very issues sought to be litigated in the cross-action of the debtor as to the sum of $6938.50 were in truth litigated before the Master and it is inherent in his finding and in the judgment of the Supreme Court ... that the cross-claim of the debtor has

We can see no reason for interfering with his Honour's conclusions in this regard. Quite apart from the question of substance, this alleged claim is, in any event, obviously for far less than the amount of the judgment debt. Moreover, the appellant could have set it up by way of cross action in the proceedings in the Supreme Court.

The allegations of fraud can be shortly disposed of. Lockhart J. concluded that there was not the faintest suggestion of fraud to be gleaned from the evidence before him and that the charge of fraud against the respondent or

the bank officers was totally without foundation. Our own

perusal of the evidence leads us unhesitatingly to agree with his Honour's conclusions in that regard. Indeed, the material before us indicates that the allegations were

The appellant's alleged claim against the respondent in negligence was initially propounded on the basis that the certificate of indebtedness of the principal debtor was negligently given and that, whereas the certificate showed indebtedness in the amount of $38,712.67, the truth of the matter was that the principal debtor was not indebted to the respondent at all. The appellant did not, either before Lockhart J. or before this Court, adduce any material to support, or, indeed, even seek to maintain, the absence of any such indebtedness. The action in negligence, which was propounded in argument, was based upon a small number of suggested inaccuracies or errors in the respondent's records in relation to the principal debtor which the appellant suggested undermined the reliability of the certificate given. Lockhart J. was of the view that there was no evidence before him which satisfied him that there could be any prima facie case made out of any such inaccuracies or errors. .Our own consideration of the evidence leads us to agree with his Honour's conclusion in that regard. More important however, it is apparent that, apart from an alleged amount of some $2,800 which the

appellant sought to show as a discrepancy by comparing

amounts which should not properly be compared, the alleged errors or inaccuracies are in respect of minor amounts and

could not warrant any real doubt being cast on the general reliability of the respondent's records. They could not, even if added to the claim for $6938.50 and interest, total

anything approaching the amount of the judgment debt.

It was argued by the appellant that, in deciding that he was not satisfied of the matters mentioned in s.40(1)(g), Lockhart J. had had regard only to the contents of the affidavit of 11 December, 1980 and the draft Statement of Claim annexed thereto. Examination of his Honour's judgment discloses that that is simply not so. His Honour's judgment makes it clear that he paid regard to the overall

It was also submitted by the appellant that Lockhart J. was in error in the approach which he adopted as to the appropriate standard of satisfaction required by s.40(1)(g) of the Act. Examination of his Honour's judgment discloses no such error. His Honour was positively satisfied that a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand of the relevant type did not exist. It was therefore unnecessary for him to define, in precise terms, the nature and degree of satisfaction necessary for the purposes of s.40(1)(g) of the

The appellant advanced a number of other submissions as to suggested errors both by the Master in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and by Lockhart J. We have, as best we can, given consideration to whether any one or more of those submissions warranted interference by this Court with the declaration or order which Lockhart J. made. Some of those submissions related to suggested errors by his Honour either in comments made or questions asked during the course of the appellant's submissions before him. Another involved a re-canvassing of the evidence before the Supreme Court. Suffice it to say that we are unpersuaded that any ground exists for interfering with his Honour's failure to be satisfied that the appellant had a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand in the relevant amount or with the declaration

One further matter remains for consideration. That matter is a finding by Lockhart J. that the affidavit of 11 December, 1980, was not an affidavit of the kind referred to in s.41(7) of the Act, that is to say, that it was not an affidavit "to the effect that" the appellant had "such a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand as is referred to in para. 40(1)(g)". Since that "affidavit was the only affidavit filed before the expiration of the time fixed for compliance with the bankruptcy notice, the result of the finding would be that the time for such compliance was not extended. The

determining the date of any act of bankruptcy constituted by a failure by the appellant to comply with the requirements of

The filing of an affidavit pursuant to the provisions of s.41(7) of the Act is the accepted method of setting in motion an application, for the purposes of s.40(1)(g), to satisfy the Court that a judgment debtor, who has been served with a bankruptcy notice, has a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt being a counter~-claim, set-off or cross demand that the judgment debtor could not have set up in the action or proceedings in which the

Judgment was obtained. In Re Brink; Ex parte Commercial

Banking Company of Sydney Limited ((1980) 30 A.L.R. 433),

Lockhart J. examined the requirements which an affidavit must satisfy if 1t is to be an affidavit of the kind specified in s.41(7). His Honour pointed out that, in many cases, debtors attempt to take advantage of the provisions of s.41(7) without the benefit of legal advice and made (ibid, p. 440)

the following general comments with which we agree:

affidavit has to be filed within a limited time namely, the number of days after service of the bankruptcy notice upon the debtor fixed by the Registrar. These times are fixed by him wathout any knowledge on his part of the possibility of a counter-claim, set~off or cross demand being propounded by the debtor. In many cases it is difficult, 1f not impossible, for the debtor to present more than a mere outline of his case in the time available.

I do not think any good purpose would be served by my attempting to express a definitive formula as to what the original affidavit must contain. That must depend in every case on the particular facts and circumstances: see Re a Debtor [1963] 1 WLR 51, per Upjohn Ld at 56.

The fact that it is within the power of the court to determine when the hearing of a matter under s41(7) will take place, and thus the length of the extension of time to comply with the requirements of the bankruptcy notice; and the difficulty, if not impossibility in some cases, of the initial affidavit being anything other than a mere outline of the debtor's case due to the temporal constraints imposed by the notice, all points to the conclusion that the courts should

adopt a benevolent construction to the initial affidavit".

Examination of the affidavit of 11 December, 1980 and the annexed draft Statement of Claim makes it tolerably clear that the appellant was propounding two distinct grounds of claim against the respondent. The first arose out of the alleged payment by the appellant to the respondent of the sum of $6938.50. On the face of the affidavit and annexed draft Statement of Claim, this alleged claim does not appear to be a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand of the kind referred to in paragraph 40(1)(g) for the reason that there is nothing an either the affidavit or Annexed draft Statement of Claim to suggest that it could not have been set up in the Supreme Court proceedings. The second propounded ground of claim against the respondent is not, however, so readily disposed

The appellant, in the affidavit of 11 December, 1980, swore to the accuracy of certain paragraphs of the annexed draft Statement of Claim. Overall, the appellant

(i) On or about 29 March, 1974, the appellant executed a Deed of Guarantee guaranteeing the payment by the principal debtor of

(ii) The said Deed provided, inter alia, that a certificate signed by any officer of the respondent would be conclusive evidence of the amount of the principal debtor's

(iii) On or about 25 December, 1978, the respondent served on the appellant a Statement of Claim in the Supreme Court of New South Wales claiming the sum of $34,845.18 pursuant to the Deed of

(iv) On or about 2 May, 1979, the respondent applied to the said Court for summary

On or about 8 October, 1979, an officer of the respondent, Mr. McCormac, gave a handwritten certificate purportedly pursuant to the Deed of Guarantee certifying the indebtedness of the principal debtor as at

By reason of the certificate of 8 October, 1979, the appellant was prevented from challenging that the principal debtor owed any money to the respondent or the amount of

The appellant believed that, in fact, no moneys at all were due by the principal

On 19 October, 1979, summary judgment in the Supreme Court of New South Wales was granted to the respondent and the appellant was ordered to pay $38,712.67 together with

The appellant proposed to file forthwith in the Supreme Court of New South Wales the annexed draft Statement of Claim which

1l. The said certificate wrongly stated the indebtedness of (the principal debtor) there being no debt due by (the principal debtor) to the Defendant.

12. The Defendant was negligent in giving or alternatively in allowing to be given the said certificate.

The defendant did not require Mr. McCormac to check or alternatively adequately to check, the Defendant's records.

13. Further or alternatively, the Defendant was negligent in the keeping of records of transactions on accounts of (the principal debtor) in that (the principal debtor) was not in fact indebted to the Defendant in the sum shown in such records or at all.

14. The issue of the said certificate precluded the Plaintiff from defending the said Supreme Court proceedings on the ground of defence that no moneys were due from (the principal debtor) to the Defendant".

The appellant claimed to have a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand against the respondent equal to or in excess of the sum claimed in the bankruptcy notice

Examination of the sworn allegations set out above makes it clear that the appellant, in the affidavit of 11 December, 1980, did far more than simply assert that he had a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand of the kind referred to in s.41(7) of the Act. Subject to one qualification, he swore to the existence of facts which, in the context of the effect which has been given to banker's certificates of the

relevant type (see Dobbs v. National Bank of Australasia

Limited ((1935) 53 C.L.R. 643) and Bache & Co. (London) Ltd.

v. Banque Vernes Et Commerciale de Paris S.A. ([1973] 2 Lil.

L.R. 437), would constitute a basis for a bona fide action in negligence which would have a real prospect of success. The qualification is that the affidavit does not constitute or indicate any real evidence that the principal debtor was not, in fact, indebted to the respondent or even positively deny any such indebtedness. It simply contains a sworn statement of the appellant's belief that no such indebtedness existed. On the other hand, the annexed draft Statement of Claim contained, in an unverified paragraph, an unqualified denial

The question whether an affidavit is an affidavit "to the effect" required by s.41(7) must, as we have indicated, depend in every case on the particular facts and circumstances and should be determined on a benevolent

construction of the relevant affidavit. In the present case,

we have reached the conclusion that, notwithstanding the qualification to which we have referred, the affidavit, when read with the annexed draft Statement of Claim, was "to the effect that" the appellant had the relevant claim in negligence against the respondent. That claim, being a claim for damages in the amount of the judgment debt together with any costs which the appellant had been ordered to pay and interest, would appear to be a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand at least equal to the amount of the judgment debt. The question remains whether it appeared from the affidavit that the claim was not one which could have been set up in the Supreme Court proceedings. In our view, it

The alleged negligently given certificate was not given until almost a year after the initiation of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The damage alleged to have been suffered by the appellant was the obtaining of judgment in those proceedings as a result of the use of the certificate in the actual course of the proceedings. In the circumstances, the propounded claim in negligence' should properly be regarded, for the purposes of s.40(1)(g), as one that could not have been set up in the Supreme Court

It follows that we are of the view that the affidavit of 11 December, 1980 was an affidavit which satisfied the requirements of s.41(7) of the Act and that there was an extension of time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice until, and including, 20 March, 1981 when Lockhart J. declared that he was not satisfied that the appellant had a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand of the

In the result, the appellant has failed in his attack on the declaration which Lockhart J. made. He has succeeded in his attack on the finding that the affidavit of 11 December, 1980 did not satisfy the requirements of s.41(7) of the Act. The effect of that success is, however, only to postpone the commission of the act of bankruptcy. Moreover, the material before the Court strongly suggests that the only reason the affidavit did satisfy the requirement of s.41(7) was that the appellant was prepared to swear that he believed the principal debtor was under no indebtedness to the respondent in circumstances in which it would seem somewhat unlikely, to say the least, that that belief was genuinely held by him. It appears to us that the appropriate course 1s to leave undisturbed the order for costs in the respondent's favour which was made by Lockhart J. and to order that the

appellant pay the respondent's costs of this appeal.

I certify that this and the 16 preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of their Honours Mr. Justice Deane, Mr. Justice Fisher