In Szita v Capital Finance Australia Limited (2004) FCA 477, the appellant claimed that by sending to Capital a document call a “certified promissory note” specifying an amount of $116,375.95, he had discharged any liability to Capital. The Court concluded that his claim is manifestly hopeless, wholly untenable, incapable of constituting tender of payment, and sufficient to discharge the debt.
Capital Finance Australia LTD v Szita  FMCA 1938 was regarding a sequestration order against the estate of Michael John Szita. Mr Szita filed with the court a notice of opposition. He raised three grounds of opposition. (1) The alleged debt has been discharged via a negotiable instrument in 2004. (2) The original matter is to be appealed on the grounds North J erred in his decision. (3) There is a cross-claim that is in excess of the alleged debt. When Mr Szita was contacted at the telephone, he declined to accept that he was Mr Szita, he advised the court that he was a person who wished to represent Mr Szita, the court informed him that it was not prepared to grant any leave to represent Mr Szita unless that person was a legal practitioner. The court requested that Mr Szita come to the phone, the person at the telephone made remarks to the effect that Mr Szita was a “straw man”. The court informed the person at the telephone that unless an acceptance was given that the court was talking to Mr Szita the conversation would conclude and the application would proceed in the absence of Mr Szita. The person at the end of the telephone did not confirm that he was Mr Szita and those steps were then taken.