Melbourne v Relativity Pty Ltd

Background 2 The following is the background against which this application is made. Mr Martin has been the business manager of the applicant. Since late 1990 they were involved in the development of restaurants and entertainment venues based on a design concept described as "the bad dog design concept". Mr Martin introduced the applicant to Mr Bingham. That introduction led to Mr Bingham providing finance for the business activities of the applicant and resulted in a document dated 13 May 1993 signed by both the applicant and Mr Bingham. It was signed by the latter on 18 May 1993. The version signed by Mr Bingham was a copy that had been sent to him by facsimile. The letter read: RE: HEADS OF AGREEMENT This letter is to confirm the basis for a formal agreement to be entered into between Mark Bingham (MB) and Lance Melbourne (LM). MB is to invest $140,000 in a shelf company to be nominated. The Directors and Shareholders of the company will initially be MB & LM. LM to hold 90% of the shares and MB to hold 10% of the shares. The investment by MB of $140,000 will be by way of a premium for the 10% shareholding. MB's shareholding will entitle him to 10% of the profits derived from the operation of the business undertaken by the company; 10% of the equity in the business such that in the event of sale of the business he would be entitled to a 10% share of the profits from the sale; also if the company purchases the premises from which it operates, MB will be entitled to 10% of the operational profits of the building in addition to 10% of the net proceeds of any future sale of the building. It is acknowledged that as at the date of this letter MB has advanced $50,000 of the $140,000 leaving a balance of $90,000 yet to be provided. To confirm your acceptance of the above as the basis of the agreement to be entered into by us please sign the attached copy where indicated. Yours faithfully (Emphasis added) 3 It is to be noted that the letter records that $50,000 had already been advanced by Mr Bingham leaving a balance of $90,000 to be paid in the way contemplated in the second and fourth paragraph. There was an issue about whether a sum of $31,900 paid on 18 May 1993 was to be treated as satisfaction of the commitment to provide the further $90,000. 4 The company which became the vehicle for the corporate structure referred to in this letter was Coachland Pty Ltd ("Coachland") which had been incorporated on 10 April 1992. Coachland became the lessee of premises in Alfred Street, Milsons Point. Those premises were to be developed and operated in the style of the bad dog design concept. However by late November 1993 it was apparent that the development of that site for that purpose was going to be delayed having regard to the attitude to its development taken by the North Sydney Council. 5 In the result a decision was taken to lease premises in Military Road, Watsons Bay to develop in conformity with the bad dog design concept. Two properties were involved. One was a cafe at 18-20 Military Road, Watsons Bay ("the cafe") and premises directly opposite which had been operating as a restaurant ("the restaurant"). They were in common ownership. In December 1993 the applicant entered a lease for five years for the cafe. It had been the applicant's intention to develop the cafe in accordance with the bad dog design concept. However while negotiating the lease for the cafe, the applicant was persuaded to lease the restaurant as well. The restaurant was offered on the basis that the site was to be redeveloped as a hotel and could be leased to the applicant both initially and when redeveloped. In the result a company of which the applicant and Martin were directors, Iona Pty Ltd ("Iona"), entered a lease for the restaurant commencing 1 January 1994. It was intended the restaurant would be fitted out in conformity with the bad dog design concept. 6 The fitout of the restaurant commenced shortly after 1 January 1994. In either December 1993 or February 1994 an agreement was executed on behalf of Relativity, Iona, the applicant, Coachland and Bad Dog Entertainment Corporation Pty Ltd ("Bad Dog Corporation"). It was dated 4 February 1994. When it was executed is not material. Bad Dog Corporation was a company jointly established by Mr Martin and the applicant in May 1991. In this agreement Relativity was identified as "the Lender" and Iona as "the Borrower". The recitals to the agreement contain a number of paragraphs relevant to the present proceedings. They include: (a) It is the present intention of the Lender to Advance to the Borrower a total of $950,000 (The Total Advance) as and when funds become available to enable it to do so. (b) At the date hereof the Lender has already advanced to the Borrower, Mr Melbourne, Coachland and Bad Dog various sums totalling approximately $60,000 on account of the Total Advance (the Interim Advances). (c) The Lender has agreed:- i) to lend to the Borrower further on account of the Total Advance the sum of Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars (the Further Advance) of which $100,000 is to be paid forthwith and the balance as soon as it becomes available to the Lender. ii) to lend further sums on account of the Total Advance from time to time at the option of the Lender as they become available to the Lender and on such terms as may be mutually agreed with the Borrower. 7 The first term of the agreement was: 1 In consideration of The Total Advance intended to be lent by the Lender to the Borrower and in consideration of the Further Advance now agreed to be lent by the Lender to the Borrower (on account of which the Borrower acknowledges the receipt of $100,000):- (a) the Borrower hereby charges to the Lender as Primary Security for The Total Advance ALL THAT its plant furniture fittings tenants' fixtures goods wares and merchandise trade goods personal chattels undertakings licences permits registered leases and logos and … (d) Mr Melbourne hereby charges by Bill of Sale to the Lender as additional security for The Total Advance ALL THAT his right title and interest in the name Bad Dog and the logo of Bad Dog. 8 The agreement went on to deal with various warranties and guarantees given by parties other than Relativity and to detail the way in which certain of the loan funds would be disbursed. The agreement then provided: 5 IT IS an essential term and condition of this Agreement that unless the parties otherwise agree: (a) … (b) that the Lender shall not be required to advance any more than the Further Advance BUT NOTHING shall prevent the Lender from advancing the whole or any part of the balance of the Total Advance as it chooses PROVIDED reasonable notice is given to the Borrower of the details of such advance NOTWITHSTANDING the rights of the Borrower to effect repayment pursuant to Clause 6 BUT the Lender shall advance the whole of the balance of the Further Advance as soon as it becomes available and such payment shall be disbursed (a) as to any balance due for any further costs and disbursements to the Lender's Solicitors; and (b) the remainder to the Borrower. PROVIDED THAT if One hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) further on account of the Further Advance is not paid within four (4) weeks and an additional Fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) within eight (8) weeks and the Total Advance within thirteen (13) weeks of the date hereof the Borrower shall be entitled to seek finance elsewhere and if successful the Lender shall not be required to make and the Borrower shall not be required to accept any further payments to the Borrower in respect of the Further Advance or The Total Advance and the Lender shall not be entitled to require the Borrower to accept The Total Advance PROVIDED THAT nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Borrower from refinancing any part of the Total Advance at any time after receipt of the Total Advance or if the Lender fails to make any payment by the due dates referred to and the Borrower shall not be obliged to accept the remaining part of the Total Advance following such failure. 9 This clause was subject to a proviso that enabled Iona to seek other finance if specified funds were not provided by Relativity within specified dates. 10 During 1994 funds were advanced by Relativity pursuant to the agreement. I will return to consider those amounts in more detail later in this judgment. 11 On 16 December 1994 written a agreement was executed modifying the 4 February 1994 agreement. The written agreement superseded but gave effect to a less formal written agreement made in late October 1994. At that stage there was some uncertainty about the total amounts that had been advanced as "the Total Advance" under the earlier agreement though the 16 December 1994 agreement recorded that it was agreed that not less than $537,000 had been advanced. The 16 December 1994 agreement contained the following terms: 2.(a) … (b) From 10 December 1994 all advances on account of the Total Advance (including the Further Advance) shall attract interest at the rate of 12.75% per annum calculated daily and if not paid compounded monthly, and shall be repaid by 31 December 1997. (c) … From and after 10 December 1994 the Total Advance shall be allocated to three separate advances (called "Separate Advances") for the three respective venues, as follows: · … · $400,000 for the Gap Tavern to Iona (the borrower for that venue); and · … 3. Advances shall be repaid by 31 December 1997. 4. Upon each venue opening the interest attributable to the Separate Advance allocated to that venue shall be paid monthly in arrears and if not paid within 14 days of the due date shall be dealt with under the next sentence of this Clause. Any interest on a Separate Advance that is not paid within 14 days of the due date shall be added to, capitalised and form part of that Separate Advance in accordance with clause 18 of the Mortgage dated 9 August 1994. 5. Relativity has agreed with effect from 30 October 1994 to advance to the borrowers a further $300,000 on account of the Total Advance of which it is acknowledged that certain sums which Relativity says total $63,455 were advanced in November 1994, $50,000 was advanced on 1 December 1994, $42,000 will be advanced on exchange of this Agreement, a further $88,000 will be advanced by 31 December 1994 (or earlier if possible) and the balance of the $300,000 will be advanced when excess funds are available to Relativity to enable it to make such payments as soon as it is practicable and hopefully by 31 January 1995. 6. Relativity is not obliged to make any further payments after the $300,000 is advanced but nothing shall prevent Relativity from making additional case advances as additions to one or more of the Separate Advances if Lance Melbourne and Relativity agree and in such case such additional advances shall be subject to such conditions as Relativity and Lance Melbourne agree including apportionment between the venues. 14. If in the opinion of Mr Melbourne it becomes essential for Iona to receive the balance of the $300,00 before Relativity has surplus funds available to it and Relativity itself decides to borrow that balance (but Relativity is under no obligation to do so) the cost of such borrowing shall be added to the relevant Separate Advance for the venue for which such funds are required. Relativity shall consult with Iona before drawing any loan so that Iona is aware of and agrees to the conditions of the loan. 12 The restaurant opened for business in March 1995. It continued trading throughout most of the remainder of 1995. The cafe opened in June 1995. On 13 October 1995 Mr Bingham entered the restaurant purportedly in exercise of powers Relativity could exercise under the various loan and associated security agreements that had been entered into in 1994. Mr Bingham was accompanied by others and removed property in purported exercise of these powers. On the same day Iona secured orders in the Supreme Court of New South Wales restraining Relativity and Mr Bingham from dealing in any way with property that had been at the restaurant. The property was returned on the afternoon of that day. After 13 October 1995 the majority of the goods, fixtures and fittings at the restaurant were removed by Martin and the applicant and stored at the premises in Alfred Street, Milsons Point which they controlled. The restaurant did not reopen. The cafe ceased trading in January 1996.

The third and fourth causes of action - legal consequences of entry on 13 October 1995 23 The remainder of the case said to constitute a claim for the purposes of s 40(1)(g) arises from the conduct of Mr Bingham on 13 October 1995 when he entered the restaurant on behalf of Relativity and took from it property in purported exercise of a right of a secured lender arising from default by the borrower, Iona. It is not in issue that Iona had not paid any interest for the funds it had been lent. It is contended by the applicant that, at least prima facie, the entry was unlawful. 24 It was submitted by counsel for the respondents that the entry was lawful and arose from default by Iona under the 16 December 1994 loan agreement. Default occurred, it was submitted, because the terms of the agreement made on 16 December 1994 required payment of interest monthly in arrears. Any failure to pay interest on that basis was a default entitling Relativity to exercise rights of entry subject to notice being given and other conditions identified in clause 17 of that agreement which are not presently relevant. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the 16 December 1994 agreement, properly construed, permitted the borrower to refrain from paying interest on the basis that the interest would be capitalized and form part of the monies advanced and, in those circumstances, the obligation of the borrower was to repay the advance by 31 December 1997. 25 In my opinion, that latter submission is arguably correct having regard to the terms of the agreement of 16 December 1994. Clause 4 states that in the event that interest was not paid monthly in arrears the amount not paid was to be dealt with in a particular way, namely capitalized and treated as part of the "Separate Advance". Clause 2(b) provides that the "Total Advance" (which includes each of the "Separate Advance(s)") was to be repaid by 31 December 1997. On one view, the scheme created by the 16 December 1994 agreement was that the borrower could elect not to pay interest monthly in arrears and that election would result in the interest forming part of the total advance which had to be repaid by the date specified in clause 2(b). On this latter construction of the agreement Iona was not in default when it failed to pay interest which was a condition precedent to any lawful entry on the part of Mr Bingham and Relativity. Counsel for the respondents referred to the judgment of Powell J in Sibard Pty Ltd v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1992) 6 BPR 13,178 in support of the contention that the borrower was in default when interest was not paid monthly in arrears. However the terms of the security document considered by Powell J made plain that any failure to pay interest and its subsequent capitalization did not result in the waiver by the lender of any rights under the security. As to the capitalization of interest see also Re Mangan; Ex parte Andrew (1983) 123 ALR 633, Silkdale Pty Ltd v Long Leys Co Pty Ltd (1995) 7 BPR 14,414 and Metway Leasing Ltd v Arnoya Holdings Pty Ltd; Metway Leasing Ltd v Baystan Pty Ltd, unreported, 26 April 1995, Supreme Court of New South Wales. 26 The trespass pleaded in the District Court statement of claim is that the applicant was the owner of and entitled to possession of the goods which were removed or otherwise dealt with by Mr Bingham on 13 October 1995. In these proceedings the focus of the submissions of both counsel was on whether there was evidence of ownership by the applicant of any of the goods in question. Though the tort concerns interference with possession, see Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott (1946) 74 CLR 204 and Gollan v Nugent (1988) 166 CLR 18, it appears to have been assumed that if the applicant owned some or all of the goods which were removed or otherwise interfered with then the conduct of Mr Bingham affected the applicant's possession of them. It might be thought that even if the applicant had the legal title in goods which were used in the restaurant, their use by Iona on premises it leased had the result that the legal possession of the goods was with Iona as occupier of the premises: see National Crime Authority v Flack (1998) 156 ALR 501 especially at 511 per Heerey J. However even if that were so it is at least arguable that the possession by Iona arises from a gratuitous bailment and the applicant, as bailor, had an immediate right to possession and a right to sue in trespass. It is unnecessary in these proceedings to delve into whether that is because a gratuitous bailor's cause of action is founded on its right of possession or additionally to protect the bailee's possession: see Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliot (supra) at 216-217 per Latham CJ and Dixon J at 224 - 228. This is probably a case where the court hearing the claim would have to assess the damages arising from a trespass to goods as best it could: see e.g. F C Wheeler v Riverside Coal Transport Co Pty Ltd (1964) QdR 113 at 124 per Philp ACJ. 27 The evidence is obscure as to what goods the applicant owned that were affected by the conduct of Mr Bingham on 13 October 1995. The applicant's evidence was that he invested $200,000 of his own money in probably January and February 1995 and that at this stage funds were required to pay tradesmen to finish what was probably the fitout of the restaurant. The quality of the evidence led in proceedings such as these has to be assessed having regard to the nature of the proceedings themselves. As Dixon CJ, McTiernan and Windeyer JJ said in Ebert v The Union Trustee Co of Australia Ltd (1960) 104 CLR 346 at 350: Perhaps the standard may be expressed by saying that the debtor must show that he has a prima facie case, even if then and there he does not adduce the admissible evidence which would make out a prima facie case before a court trying the issues that are involved in his counter claim, set off or cross demand. 28 For recent examples of the application of this approach see also Re Phyllis Graves; Ex parte Phyllis Graves v Kevin Seggie [1997] FCA 1154; Andrew Cecil Thorpe v Bristile Ltd [1997] FCA 1369, Re Shaddock; Ex parte Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1998] FCA 355; Re Bruce William Naghten and Irene Margaret Naghten; Bruce William Naghten and Irene Margaret Naghten v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1998] FCA 635; Fred Boylan v Steven Farthing [1998] FCA 1342. 29 I should note that I rejected the tender by counsel for the applicant of both an affidavit jointly sworn by the applicant and Mr Martin in other proceedings and related material. The affidavit contained a schedule asserting that certain goods were paid for by the applicant or Bad Dog Corporation though the fact of payment asserted in the schedule was not attested to by the deponents to the affidavit. I rejected the tender because I did not consider the mere assertion in the schedule provided a sufficient foundation to prove payment even for present purposes. 30 It is clear from the evidence that in early 1995, the applicant was representing to Mr Bingham that further funds were necessary to reach a point where the restaurant could open for business. Even accepting the paucity of evidence concerning the investment of funds by the applicant in this period, there is nonetheless sufficient material from which can be inferred, for the purposes of proceedings such as these which do not involve a preliminary trial of the claim: see Re Brink; Ex parte Commercial Banking Co of Sydney Ltd (1980) 44 FLR 135, that the applicant spent his own funds, being part of the sum of $200,000, on at least part of the fitting out of the restaurant and the acquisition of plant and equipment to enable it to commence operating. Arguably the applicant was the presumptive owner and remained in legal possession or had a legal right to possession of the property acquired with his funds. 31 The damage pleaded in the statement of claim was for items "broken damaged and destroyed" and though particulars were not set out, it was pleaded they would be provided. By the time this application was heard, they had not been. It is not entirely clear whether damages are sought for anything other than physical damage to property though the pleadings suggest not. Exemplary damages are not sought: see Healing (Sales) Pty Ltd v Inglis Electrix Pty Ltd (1968) 121 CLR 584 and XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1984) 155 CLR 448. The evidence of the physical damage to the property of either the applicant or Iona as a result of the entry by Mr Bingham is limited. Mr Martin stated in an affidavit: Some of the goods (Mr Bingham) removed from the premises including extensive documentation relating to Iona Corporation and other businesses were not recovered and numerous other goods including our expensive stereo, video, lighting and technical equipment were sabotaged or destroyed beyond repair by (Mr Bingham). 32 In addition, there were, in evidence, photographs of the premises before and after the entry. They show, albeit only by way of impression, that there was at least extensive interference with, and probably some damage to, the fixtures, fittings and plant and equipment in the restaurant. While some of the fixtures and fittings and plant and equipment were items one would expect in a restaurant such as fridges and coffee machines, others were items fabricated specifically to give effect to the bad dog design concept. 33 Counsel for the respondents relied on a proposition in Re a Debtor (1983) 3 All ER 545 (at 553 per Warner J and 558 Sir Robert Megarry VC agreeing) that the affidavits filed in support of a contention that the debtor has a counter claim, set off cross demand must disclose a cross demand which is capable of being quantified if it is for an unliquidated amount and the affidavits must quantify it. However the position in Australia is more flexible: see Re Donkin; Ex parte AGC Advances Ltd (1994) 52 FCR 271. In any event, as a matter of fact, in these proceedings an affidavit of the applicant sworn on 6 March 1998 and filed that day quantified the damage to the applicant's property at the restaurant at $200,000. However this affidavit was not read by counsel for the applicant as part of the substantive hearing of the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice. Rather it was indicated that the first affidavit could be treated as "assertions of [the applicant's] case rather than evidence of them". 34 The relevant question, for present purposes, is not whether the affidavits filed on behalf of the applicant have expressly quantified the unliquidated damages sought but rather whether the applicant can demonstrate, on all the material before the court, that the claim is a bona fide and substantial one and there are reasonable prospects of him recovering damages equal to or exceeding the amount upon which the bankruptcy notice is founded. An analogous situation arose in relation to the determination of a creditor's petition in Re Schmidt; Ex parte Anglewood Pty Ltd (1967) 13 FLR 111. The debtor, albeit in resisting the making of a sequestration order, sought to establish that he had a claim for damages against the petitioning creditor which would either extinguish or reduce the amount of his original debt. One aspect of the debtor's claim was for damages for wrongful removal of his property. The Federal Court of Bankruptcy was confronted with a question of how it should deal with the claim. Gibbs J said at 115-116: The question immediately arises whether I should proceed to determine the existence and extent of the debtor's alleged claim. … Where, however, the debtor claims to be entitled to unliquidated damages in tort against the petitioning creditor the position seems to me to be different. As a general rule this Court is not an appropriate forum to decide such a claim and is limited to forming a view as to whether it appears that there is sufficient validity in the debtor's claims to justify dismissal or adjournment of the petition. I agree in general with what was said in Re Player (1962) 19 ABC 227 in relation to this question. Considerable evidence directed to this issue has been given before me and it seems to me that I ought to consider this evidence for the purpose of deciding only whether it is probable that the debtor has against the petitioning creditor a claim which is likely to succeed. If I am satisfied that the debtor has a claim against the petitioning creditor equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt, I should not make a sequestration order. If, however, it appears that the debtor has a claim which is less than the amount of the petitioning creditor's judgment debt, the proper course would seem to me to be require the debtor, if he desires to avoid a sequestration order, to pay the difference between the amount of the judgment debt and the amount which seems probable to me that he will recover in the proceedings against the petitioning creditor. 35 These matters were also referred to by Beaumont J in Vee H Aviation Pty Ltd v BP Australia Ltd (1995) 58 FCR 73 at 76 in the context of proceedings under the Corporations Law to set aside a statutory demand. The proper approach, in my opinion, in proceedings concerning a bankruptcy notice was that identified by Sackville J in Re Phyllis Graves (supra): The creditor submitted that there was nothing to justify finding that the debtor's claim is for an amount greater than the judgment debt. As I have explained, it is not necessary to show that the debtor will succeed in recovering a greater amount than that due to the creditor. It is enough that, if the claim for breach of duty were made out, there is a fair chance that the damages would exceed the amount of the judgment debt. I have already dealt with this question in relation to the affidavit filed on 29 October 1996. It is now necessary to consider the totality of the evidence on this issue. The evidence of loss adduced on behalf of the debtor is far from complete, even allowing for the later affidavits. However, it is necessary to bear in mind the nature of these proceedings and the difficulties facing a debtor of very limited means in establishing the quantum of loss flowing from a solicitor's alleged breach of duty in the conduct of litigation. 36 It must be said, however, that the applicant in these proceedings does not face all the difficulties of the applicant in that matter. I will return to consider the material advanced by the applicant and the amount the applicant might recover in the action in trespass shortly. 37 In final submissions counsel for the applicant adverted to two additional causes of action not presently raised in the proceedings in the District Court. The factual and legal foundation of each was not detailed though they were based, in part, on evidence given by Mr Bingham about the purpose of the entry to the restaurant on 13 October 1995. His evidence was: So that you knew when you attended at the premises of the Gap Tavern on 13 October 1995 that the result of your actions, if you were allowed to continue them, would be that the business would cease to operate?---Not at all. My purposes were to enforce a charge held by my company over certain assets. The outcome of my enforcement of that charge could have gone a number of ways including agreement to pay the unpaid moneys that caused the charge to be exercised. 38 As I apprehend the submission of counsel for the applicant, it was that this evidence might found a conclusion that the entry was effected to harm the applicant or, unlawfully, to induce the repayment of the funds that had been lent. If so, Mr Bingham and Relativity, it was submitted, had conspired to injure the applicant by unlawful means and Mr Bingham had "damaged his client's interests by unlawful means". 39 Even assuming the various elements of the tort of conspiracy were made out, apart from the agreement, the applicant has, in my opinion, little likelihood of establishing the existence of an agreement to found the action. While the better view is that a corporation can be a co-conspirator: see Egan v Barrier Branch of Amalgamated Miners' Association (1917) 17 SR NSW 243, R v Blamires Transport Services Ltd [1964] 1 QB 278; Belmont Finance Corp Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd [1979] Ch 250, it is extremely doubtful that a conspiracy can arise between the sole controller of a company and the company: see R v McDonnell [1966] 1 QB 233, Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1982) [1984] QB 624. That was the case here as Mr Bingham was, on the evidence, in effective control of Relativity. 40 As to the contention that an action in tort arose because Mr Bingham has intentionally damaged the applicant's interests by unlawful means, I would have thought that no such action would lie having regard to the judgment of the High Court in Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307. 41 Having regard to matters discussed to this point, the only cause of action that, in my opinion, has any prospect at all of securing for the applicant a judgment for an amount equal to or exceeding the amount claimed in the bankruptcy notice, is the alleged trespass. I have already referred to the evidence advanced by the applicant on this issue of the amount the applicant might secure. 42 This is probably a situation where that aspect of the claim can fairly be described as a borderline one. It is borderline in the sense that evidence concerning what property might have been owned by the applicant, and more importantly the damage that might have been done to it and the losses he may have sustained as a result of the entry, might arguably, with a fair measure of benevolence, be taken as establishing that the damages the applicant might recover equalled or exceeded the amount claimed in the bankruptcy notice. In such a case the question of the bona fides of the claim can assume greater importance. 43 In a passage from the judgment of the High Court in Ebert v The Union Trustee Company of Australia Ltd (supra) immediately preceding the passage quoted earlier in these reasons, the Court said: In Re Duncan; Ex parte Modlin (1917) 17 S.R.(N.S.W.) 152, 34 W.N. 49 Street J. said that the debtor need not satisfy the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he will establish his cross action, but only that he has a bona fide claim which he is fairly entitled to litigate. This perhaps is expressed too favourably to the debtor. In Re A Debtor (1958) 1 Ch. 81 Roxburgh J said: 'But not every demand will suffice. A demand made in bad faith would not be good enough. The debtor must satisfy the Court that he has a genuine demand. … But in my opinion a demand must be more than bona fide: the Court must be satisfied that it has a reasonable probability of success' ((1958) 1 Ch., at p. 99). 44 In Re Bruce William Naghten (supra) Foster J was confronted, in an application to set aside a bankruptcy notice, with a claim (said to satisfy s 40(1)(g)) that was made late and which his Honour viewed as not made bona fide. His Honour accordingly concluded that the claim "lack(ed) the necessary bona fides required for it to qualify as a means of setting aside the bankruptcy notice pursuant to s 40(1)(g)". Bona fides is put in issue in these proceedings. Counsel for the respondents submitted the claim for trespass is not genuine. He referred to the fact that the statement of claim was filed in June 1998 after the application in this Court to set the bankruptcy notice aside. I should add, parenthetically, that it may be more accurate to describe it as an application for an order that the bankruptcy notice is spent: see Re Phyllis Graves (supra) though that is not the language of s 41(7) and rule 13 of the Bankruptcy Rules. Counsel for the respondents also pointed to the fact that the particulars of damage that the statement of claim filed in June 1998 declared would be provided, never have been. 45 In addition to these matters, the affidavits filed in these proceedings prior to the hearing have never squarely addressed, beyond mere assertion, the question of what were the actual goods owned by the applicant. Indeed, the damage to them was not addressed in the affidavits beyond the most general assertion in the paragraph of Mr Martin's affidavit referred to earlier. 46 In my opinion the proceedings filed in the District Court are no more than a strategic move in a range of what is probably now quite acrimonious litigation, which I need not detail, that has involved the applicant and Mr Bingham and persons and corporations with which they are associated. 47 It is a move that was made by the applicant merely to lay a foundation to resist the consequences of the service of the bankruptcy notice. Not only were the District Court proceedings commenced in the way pointed to by counsel for the respondents but no real attempt was made prior to the hearing of this application to establish that all or any aspects of the claim, at least as it related to the trespass, would establish, prima facie, an amount the applicant might secure equal to or exceeding the amount claimed in the bankruptcy notice. The claim, including the cause of action in trespass, is not, in my opinion, a bona fide one. It is thus not a claim that should move the Court to set aside the bankruptcy notice or declare that it is spent. 48 I dismiss the application with costs. I certify that the preceding forty-eight (48) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (6 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (18)