Citation: Lloyd Foyster v ANZ Banking Group [2000] NSWSC 1038
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division
Date: 13 November 2000
Judge(s): Hidden J
Background
The plaintiff, an individual who had executed a deed of assignment under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, brought proceedings against a major bank alleging fraud in connection with transactions in 1985 and 1989, and a further claim arising from the bank's sale of mortgaged property in 1994. The plaintiff had previously been indebted to the bank in amounts ranging between approximately $9.8 million and $10.8 million, as disclosed in his own Statement of Affairs and the trustee's certified list of proofs of debt.
These proceedings had a complex procedural history. Hidden J had already delivered an earlier judgment in May 1999 dealing with summary dismissal applications, leaving only the fraud claims and the 1994 property sale claim alive. At a resumed hearing in July 1999, the bank's counsel, appearing for the first time in the matter, advanced fresh arguments for summary disposal of those surviving claims.
The central questions at the resumed hearing were whether the fraud claims were rendered futile by the bankruptcy set-off provisions, whether an Anshun estoppel applied, and whether the pleadings in their current form were adequate.
Legal Issues
- Whether s 86(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (the mutual set-off provision) meant the fraud claims would necessarily yield a nil balance in the bank's favour, making further litigation futile
- Whether the plaintiff was estopped from raising the fraud claims under the Anshun principle, on the basis they should have been raised in earlier proceedings
- Whether the pleadings of the fraud claims and the 1994 property sale claim were adequate
- Whether the plaintiff had standing to maintain the fraud claims, given uncertainty about whether the trustee had revested those causes of action in the plaintiff
- Whether a company should be joined as second plaintiff given the plaintiff's uncertain standing
Decision
Section 86 set-off argument: The bank argued that because the plaintiff's claimed damages from the alleged frauds fell below his admitted debt to the bank, the set-off under s 86(1) would inevitably produce a nil balance, making the claims futile. Hidden J acknowledged the force of this argument, noting that a similar approach had succeeded before Emmett J in related Federal Court proceedings. However, His Honour declined to treat the argument as unanswerable at the summary dismissal stage, particularly given that property sales in 1994 appeared to have reduced the debt below the damages amount, and that the trustee had not actually conducted a s 86 accounting with the plaintiff's damages claims in view. The matter was left as a potential defence, to be examined at trial if the claims proceed.
Anshun estoppel: The bank contended that the fraud claims should have been raised in earlier proceedings and that the plaintiff was now estopped from pursuing them. Hidden J rejected this argument. The Anshun principle applies where proceedings have been brought to finality and there is a risk of conflicting decisions on the same matter. Neither condition was satisfied here, given that no substantive hearing had yet occurred.
Pleadings: The bank raised new criticisms of the adequacy of the fraud and property sale pleadings, which Hidden J had not addressed in the earlier judgment. His Honour accepted that the criticisms appeared to have substance but noted the matter had not been fully argued. The plaintiff's legal representatives were to have the opportunity to reconsider and, if appropriate, reformulate the pleadings, with the issue to be dealt with at a directions hearing.
Standing and joinder: The plaintiff had not produced evidence that the trustee had revested the fraud causes of action in him, and proceedings for rectification of the relevant agreement were apparently on foot in the Equity Division. The joinder of a company as second plaintiff remained contestable, particularly if the plaintiff's standing to pursue the fraud claims could not be established.
Orders Made
• The claims in fraud should not be summarily dismissed
• Counsel for the plaintiff should have the opportunity to consider criticisms of the pleadings and re-frame them if thought appropriate
• The matter of re-framing pleadings should be a matter for directions, with the parties to be heard about that
Key Takeaways
-
A defendant seeking summary dismissal bears the burden of showing the plaintiff's case is so weak that proceeding to trial would be futile, applying the principles from General Steel Industries. The Supreme Court held that the s 86 set-off argument, while arguable, did not reach that threshold given factual uncertainty about the extent of the debt after the 1994 property sales.
-
The Anshun estoppel principle is confined to claims that ought to have been raised in proceedings that were brought to finality. Where no substantive hearing has occurred and there is no risk of conflicting decisions, the principle does not apply.
-
Under s 231(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the s 86 mutual set-off provisions apply to a person who executes a deed of assignment under Part X as if a sequestration order had been made on the date of execution, a point confirmed by reference to Gye v McIntyre.
-
Pleading deficiencies raised for the first time on a resumed hearing will not necessarily result in summary dismissal. The Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff the opportunity to reformulate the pleadings, treating adequacy as a matter for directions.
-
Uncertainty about whether a trustee has revested causes of action in a former bankrupt can affect both standing to sue and the joinder of other plaintiffs, and may require separate equity proceedings to resolve.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss 40(1)(g), 86(1), 231(2)
Cases:
- Gye v McIntyre (1990-91) 171 CLR 609
- Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Limited (1981) 147 CLR 589
- Foyster v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [1999] FCA 1043 (Emmett J)
- General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 (referenced in text)
- Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v The News Corporation Limited (1997) 79 FCR 117