Re: Hawkins; Ex Parte: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hawkins [1995] FCA 1195

Re: Hawkins; Ex Parte: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hawkins [1995] FCA 1195

The debtor demonstrated no hardship, irreversible prejudice or other sufficient ground for delaying the sequestration order, and the mere proposed appeal did not justify a stay; therefore the stay pending appeal was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 1995
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceeding / Application by Debtor for Further Stay of Sequestration Order Pending Filing of Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Application for a stay pending appeal of the sequestration order refused.
Legal Topics
['sequestration Order' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'hardship or Prejudice' 'costs']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure'] ['sequestration Order' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'hardship or Prejudice' 'costs']

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

Bankruptcy Proceeding / Application by Debtor for Further Stay of Sequestration Order Pending Filing of Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sequestration order should be further stayed pending the filing and disposition of an appeal.' 'Whether the debtor demonstrated hardship or irreversible or powerful prejudice sufficient to justify a stay.']

Ratio Decidendi

The debtor demonstrated no hardship, irreversible prejudice or other sufficient ground for delaying the sequestration order, and the mere proposed appeal did not justify a stay; therefore the stay pending appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay pending appeal of the sequestration order refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for a stay pending the appeal of the sequestration order is refused.' "The debtor will pay the creditor's costs of the application."]