Wenkart v Pantzer (No 2) [2010] FCA 1408

Wenkart v Pantzer (No 2) [2010] FCA 1408

All residual issues raised by Dr Wenkart had either already been addressed in the August 2010 judgment or did not justify disturbing the previous outcome. No variation of entitlements or costs is warranted. Interest should run from 16 September 2008 for the sum determined. Declaratory relief as to Mr Pantzer's entitlement is appropriate. Orders for sale of the Paddington property should be made, excluding specific subparagraphs that are inconsistent with the parties' agreement or previous judgments.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Practice and Procedure / Bankruptcy / Post Judgment; Resolution of Residual Issues Prior to Final Orders
Outcome
The proceeding is stood over to 24 December 2010 for final orders. Court indicates form of orders to be made, including declaration of entitlement, order for payment of interest, and orders for sale of property with specific limitations.
Legal Topics
['interest Calculation' 'declaratory Relief' 'order for Sale of Property' 'fixed Costs Order' 'premature Filing of Cross Claim' 'windfall Prevention' 'sanctions' 'material Change of Circumstances']
['civil Procedure' 'bankruptcy'] ['interest Calculation' 'declaratory Relief' 'order for Sale of Property' 'fixed Costs Order' 'premature Filing of Cross Claim' 'windfall Prevention' 'sanctions' 'material Change of Circumstances']

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

Civil Practice and Procedure / Bankruptcy / Post Judgment; Resolution of Residual Issues Prior to Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there are residual issues requiring resolution following judgment of August 2010' "Whether 'material change in circumstances' since the 2006 Full Court decision warrants variation" "Whether any 'sanctions' or cost consequences should be imposed due to conduct or delay" "Whether orders would confer a 'windfall' on the respondent" "Whether there was an error in arithmetic underlying the applicant's liability" 'From what date and in what sum interest should be awarded' 'What declaratory and consequential orders are appropriate' 'The form and basis for a court-ordered sale of property']

Ratio Decidendi

All residual issues raised by Dr Wenkart had either already been addressed in the August 2010 judgment or did not justify disturbing the previous outcome. No variation of entitlements or costs is warranted. Interest should run from 16 September 2008 for the sum determined. Declaratory relief as to Mr Pantzer's entitlement is appropriate. Orders for sale of the Paddington property should be made, excluding specific subparagraphs that are inconsistent with the parties' agreement or previous judgments.

Court Disposition

The proceeding is stood over to 24 December 2010 for final orders. Court indicates form of orders to be made, including declaration of entitlement, order for payment of interest, and orders for sale of property with specific limitations.

Orders

  • ['Declaration as to entitlement of Mr Pantzer to be paid $173,079.71 by Dr Wenkart' 'Order for payment of interest on $173,079.71 from 16 September 2008, in sum to be computed' 'Declaratory relief as to further lawful entitlements subject to taxation certificates' 'Orders for sale of the Paddington property...