Bond & Ors v Tuohy [1995] FCA 88

Bond & Ors v Tuohy [1995] FCA 88

It is not necessary or appropriate for the court to declare what may or should constitute compliance with a particular notice under S 77C; that is a matter for the Official Receiver, who has discretion to specify time and manner of compliance and may afford an opportunity to be heard to concerned parties.

Parties
First Applicant: Alan Bond; Second Applicant: John Bryan Bond; Third Applicant: Craig David Bond; Fourth Applicant: Diana Gwenyth Bliss; Fifth Applicant: Roger Bryer; Sixth Applicant: Peter Raymond Holdsworth; Seventh Applicant: Neil Cunningham; Eighth Applicant: Whitsunday Island Developments Pty Ltd; Ninth Applicant: Armoy Pty Ltd; Tenth Applicant: Hullmes Pty Ltd; Eleventh Applicant: Tambar Pty Ltd; Twelfth Applicant: Yathroo Estates Pty Ltd; Thirteenth Applicant: WA Foundation Homes Pty Ltd; Fourteenth Applicant: Fairoak Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Andrew Patrick Tuohy; Second Respondent: Michael J Palmer; Third Respondent: Michael Rozenes; Fourth Respondent: George Lionel Caddy; Fifth Respondent: Robert Eastaugh Ramsay
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 1995
Procedural Posture
General Division Proceeding / Ruling on Applications for Declaration and Injunction
Outcome
Application for declaration and injunction declined
Legal Topics
Official Receiver's Powers, Compliance With Notice Under S 77 C, Court's Power to Declare Mode of Compliance, Injunction Pending Appeal
Bankruptcy Law Official Receiver's Powers Compliance With Notice Under S 77 C Court's Power to Declare Mode of Compliance Injunction Pending Appeal

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Bond

First Applicant

John Bryan Bond

Second Applicant

Craig David Bond

Third Applicant

Diana Gwenyth Bliss

Fourth Applicant

Roger Bryer

Fifth Applicant

Peter Raymond Holdsworth

Sixth Applicant

Neil Cunningham

Seventh Applicant

Whitsunday Island Developments Pty Ltd

Eighth Applicant

Armoy Pty Ltd

Ninth Applicant

Hullmes Pty Ltd

Tenth Applicant

Tambar Pty Ltd

Eleventh Applicant

Yathroo Estates Pty Ltd

Twelfth Applicant

WA Foundation Homes Pty Ltd

Thirteenth Applicant

Fairoak Pty Ltd

Fourteenth Applicant

Andrew Patrick Tuohy

First Respondent

Michael J Palmer

Second Respondent

Michael Rozenes

Third Respondent

George Lionel Caddy

Fourth Respondent

Robert Eastaugh Ramsay

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

General Division Proceeding / Ruling on Applications for Declaration and Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who may specify the time and place for compliance with a notice under S 77C
  2. 2 Whether the court should declare what constitutes compliance with a particular S 77C notice
  3. 3 Whether an injunction pending appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

It is not necessary or appropriate for the court to declare what may or should constitute compliance with a particular notice under S 77C; that is a matter for the Official Receiver, who has discretion to specify time and manner of compliance and may afford an opportunity to be heard to concerned parties.

Court Disposition

Application for declaration and injunction declined

Orders

  • No declaration made as to compliance with S 77C notice
  • No injunction granted pending appeal