Bukewitsch v Goodman [2020] TASSC 31 — Proof & Aust Dig Evidence [1203] — Barrister AI
← Back
Bukewitsch v Goodman
[2020] TASSC 31
Supreme Court of Tasmania
Good law / bad law (paid plan)
Add to Notebook
0 highlights
0 notes
Copy Citation
More
Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.
See how it works
Interrogate
Catchwords
+10 more
Evidence
›
Proof
›
Burden of proof
›
Generally
›
Acknowledgment of deed under seal
›
Defendant must allege and prove payment by way of discharge as a defence to an action for indebtedness in respect of executed consideration
›
No documentary proof that payment was made - Failure of creditor to complain did not displace the onus
›
Defendants failed to satisfy the onus
›
Defendants' failure to subpoena bank documents a significant factor.
Young v Queensland Trustees Limited [1956] HCA 51; (1956) 99 CLR 560, followed.
Aust Dig Evidence [1203]
Deeds
›
Deed poll
›
Unilateral acknowledgment of debt under seal
›
Deed a speciality
›
Argued debt merged in deed and deed's terms conclusive.
Case Details
Citation
[2020] TASSC 31
Court
TASSC
Jurisdiction
Tasmania
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members.
[2020] TASSC 31
9 authorities it relies on
1956
1969
1982
1995
2008
2020
Relies on
9
2013
Netglory Pty Ltd v Caratti
WASC 364
2010
Agricultural and Rural Finance Pty Limited v John Edward Atkinson & Ors
NSWSC 1396
2005
Barker & Ors v The Duke Group Ltd (in Liq); Hambros Australia Ltd & Ors v The Duke Group Ltd (in Liq)
SASC 81
2003
TSB Developments Pty Ltd v HCH & K Fisheries Pty Ltd
TASSC 136
and 5 more after sign-in
Create free account
Already have an account?
Sign in
See how it works