Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAKIEFEL CJ,GAGELER, KEANE, NETTLE AND EDELMAN JJRAMSAY HEALTH CARE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD  APPELLANTANDADRIAN JOHN COMPTON  RESPONDENTRamsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton[2017] HCA 28Date of Order:  4 May 2017Date of Publication of Reasons:  17 August 2017S53/2017ORDER1.Appeal dismissed.2.Appellant pay the respondent's costs.On appeal from the Federal Court of AustraliaRepresentationJ Stoljar SC with J E Hynes for the appellant (instructed by MinterEllison)G O'L Reynolds SC with M J O'Meara and S Kanagaratnam for the respondent (instructed by Pavuk Legal)Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSRamsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v ComptonBankruptcy – Creditor's petition – Where petitioning creditor relied upon judgment debt – Where judgment debt resulted from contested hearing – Where no suggestion of fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment – Where evidence adduced to suggest debt not truly owing – Whether Bankruptcy Court has, and should exercise, discretion to "go behind" judgment to investigate debt. Words and phrases – "debt truly owing", "fraud, collusion or miscarriage of justice", "'go behind' a judgment", "miscarriage of justice". Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 52.KIEFEL CJ, KEANE AND NETTLE JJ. A Bankruptcy Court exercising jurisdiction under s 52 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ("the Act") may, in some circumstances, "go behind" a judgment in order to be satisfied that the debt relied upon by the petitioning creditor is truly owing. The Bankruptcy Court may take this course in order to satisfy itself that...