Shaw, George Thomas & Anor v Crichton, John & Anor [1998] FCA 922

Shaw, George Thomas & Anor v Crichton, John & Anor [1998] FCA 922

The established costs debt, act of bankruptcy and statutory matters gave the petitioning creditors a prima facie right to sequestration orders, and the debtors did not show sufficient cause to displace that right. The fact that their liability for costs arose from unsuccessful probate litigation in which they failed to satisfy the legal onus of proof was not a reason to refuse sequestration, and the primary judge's discretion did not miscarry.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sequestration Orders / Appeal Dismissed With Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['sequestration Orders' 'act of Bankruptcy' "petitioning Creditor's Debt" 'discretion to Refuse Sequestration Order' 'onus of Proof for Testamentary Capacity' 'costs Order as Foundation for Bankruptcy Petition']
['bankruptcy' 'probate and Succession' 'costs'] ['sequestration Orders' 'act of Bankruptcy' "petitioning Creditor's Debt" 'discretion to Refuse Sequestration Order' 'onus of Proof for Testamentary Capacity' 'costs Order as Foundation for Bankruptcy Petition']

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

Appeal From Sequestration Orders / Appeal Dismissed With Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge's discretion miscarried in making sequestration orders against the debtors." 'Whether alleged injustice in probate principles about the onus of proving testamentary capacity was sufficient cause to refuse sequestration orders founded on a costs debt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The established costs debt, act of bankruptcy and statutory matters gave the petitioning creditors a prima facie right to sequestration orders, and the debtors did not show sufficient cause to displace that right. The fact that their liability for costs arose from unsuccessful probate litigation in which they failed to satisfy the legal onus of proof was not a reason to refuse sequestration, and the primary judge's discretion did not miscarry.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed with costs.']