Ferella v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2015] NSWCA 81

Ferella v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2015] NSWCA 81

The stay was refused because the appeal had no realistic prospects of success: the appellants' counsel had conceded before the primary judge that the staged orders excluding the Box Hill property were a course open to the Court and partly met the appellants' earlier submissions, so the primary judge made no error in making the s 66G orders without further reasons.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for a Stay Pending Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Stay of Orders Made by Nicholas AJ on 18 December 2014
Outcome
Application for a stay refused.
Legal Topics
['stay of Orders Pending Appeal' 'appointment of Trustees for Sale' 'conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw), S 66 G' 'bankruptcy Administration Costs and Expenses' 'prospects of Appeal']
['civil Procedure' 'bankruptcy' 'property Law'] ['stay of Orders Pending Appeal' 'appointment of Trustees for Sale' 'conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw), S 66 G' 'bankruptcy Administration Costs and Expenses' 'prospects of 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for a Stay Pending Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Stay of Orders Made by Nicholas AJ on 18 December 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders appointing trustees for sale under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) should be stayed pending the hearing of the appeal.' 'Whether the appellants had an arguable appeal or realistic prospects of success in light of concessions made before the primary judge.' 'Whether the appeal would be rendered of no effect or utility unless a stay were granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because the appeal had no realistic prospects of success: the appellants' counsel had conceded before the primary judge that the staged orders excluding the Box Hill property were a course open to the Court and partly met the appellants' earlier submissions, so the primary judge made no error in making the s 66G orders without further reasons.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay refused.

Orders

  • ["The appellants' application for a stay pending appeal was dismissed with costs."]