Valera Pty Ltd v Walker [2010] NSWSC 1492

Valera Pty Ltd v Walker [2010] NSWSC 1492

The application for adjournment was refused because the Court was not satisfied that the third cross-defendant was presently bankrupt, an order under s 20 appeared not to be a provable debt, any later order would not be more likely to do justice between the parties than an order made immediately, and inadequacy of evidence about assets and liabilities was not a sufficient reason to adjourn.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling / Application for Adjournment
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused.
Legal Topics
['application for Adjournment' "possibility of Party's Bankruptcy" 'stay of Proceedings' 'provable Debt' 'property Adjustment Order Under S 20 of Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw)']
['practice and Procedure' 'bankruptcy' 'property Relationships'] ['application for Adjournment' "possibility of Party's Bankruptcy" 'stay of Proceedings' 'provable Debt' 'property Adjustment Order Under S 20 of Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw)']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Ruling / Application for Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application should be adjourned because the third cross-defendant might be or become bankrupt.' "Whether the cross-claimant's claim would be stayed under s 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)." 'Whether a claim for relief under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) is a claim in respect of a provable debt.' 'Whether a future order after a change in financial circumstances would be more likely to do justice between the parties than an order made immediately.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for adjournment was refused because the Court was not satisfied that the third cross-defendant was presently bankrupt, an order under s 20 appeared not to be a provable debt, any later order would not be more likely to do justice between the parties than an order made immediately, and inadequacy of evidence about assets and liabilities was not a sufficient reason to adjourn.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for the adjournment is refused.']