Exercise 021 | Law

Exercise 021

Misleading Conduct: Fitz-Gibbon, in the matter of Fitz-Gibbon v Inspector General in Bankruptcy [2000] FCA 1677 (24 November 2000)

click here to download this document
click here (AustLII link) to view the case

Easy questions

  1. How would you cite the case?
  2. What is the difference between an error of law and an error of fact?
  3. What type of case is it?
  4. Who was the judge?
  5. Where was the case heard? Where does this fit in the court hierarchy?
  6. Where was the case appealed from?

More difficult questions

  1. What was counsel for the appellants' submission regarding the Citibank credit card?
  2. What was the issue relating to the Rolex watch and in what way was it argued to involve misleading conduct?
  3. What were the arguments of counsel for the appellants to demonstrate that the credit card issue did not involve misleading conduct?
  4. From which legislation does the requirement that the Federal Court only examine questions of errors of law in such cases arise?

Complex questions

  1. What reasoning and case law did counsel for the appellant make use of to argue that credit was obtained prior to the bankruptcy?
  2. How did Stone J come to the decision that use of the credit card constituted misleading conduct?
  3. What was counsel for the respondent's response to the appellant's claim that there was no justification for extending the bankruptcy?
  4. What conclusion did Stone J come to in relation to whether the AAT could consider evidence not relied on when filing the objection? What case law did she rely on to this end?
  5. In deciding that the case was not reviewable in the Federal Court, what principles did Stone J find that the AAT had abided by?
  6. Do you think there is a ratio decidendi this case stands for?