Bond, A. & Ors v. Tuohy, A.P. & Ors [1994] FCA 994

Bond, A. & Ors v. Tuohy, A.P. & Ors [1994] FCA 994

The Court declined to make the order sought because an injunction preventing a litigant approaching a court is a very drastic remedy and the issues introduced by the trustee's request under s 77 were properly and more effectively to be considered in the application returnable the following week, in the appropriate forum and having regard to the significance of the orders previously made by Northrop J and Heerey J.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 1994
Procedural Posture
Motion for Injunction / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Order sought declined; no order as to costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['application Under Bankruptcy Act S 77' 'injunction Preventing a Litigant Approaching a Court' 'documents Seized Under Crimes Act Warrants' 'trustee Inspection and Photocopying of Documents']
['bankruptcy' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['application Under Bankruptcy Act S 77' 'injunction Preventing a Litigant Approaching a Court' 'documents Seized Under Crimes Act Warrants' 'trustee Inspection and Photocopying of Documents']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Motion for Injunction / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should make the order sought, described as an injunction preventing a litigant approaching a court.' "Whether considerations concerning the trustee's proposed application under Bankruptcy Act s 77 should instead be determined in the application returnable before Whitlam J in Sydney." 'Whether documents held by the Federal Police as a result of seizure under Crimes Act warrants, and arguably not subject to compulsory process by the Official Receiver under s 77(c) of the Bankruptcy Act, are matters relevant to an order under s 77.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to make the order sought because an injunction preventing a litigant approaching a court is a very drastic remedy and the issues introduced by the trustee's request under s 77 were properly and more effectively to be considered in the application returnable the following week, in the appropriate forum and having regard to the significance of the orders previously made by Northrop J and Heerey J.

Court Disposition

Order sought declined; no order as to costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The order sought is declined.' 'No order for the costs of the motion.']