The Full Court upheld the dismissal of an application to set aside a bankruptcy notice, holding that the appellants' tort claims (misfeasance in public office, conspiracy, and contractual interference) against a local council were speculative and insufficiently particularised to constitute a cross demand under s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. On the facts, the existence of an independent planning panel process that assessed the heritage value of the property on its merits significantly undermined the inferential case for victimisation. As to quantum, the Court confirmed that while an applicant need not adduce trial-standard evidence, bare assertions of loss without any disclosed basis (such as an unsupported opinion of a 10% cost increase) and purely speculative claims of property diminution are insufficient to establish even a prima facie case that the cross demand equals or exceeds the judgment debt.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.