McKellar v Container Terminal Management Services Ltd (No 4) [2002] FCA 185
By operation of s 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), the bankruptcy of the second applicant operates to stay the entire proceedings, including those brought by the first applicant, until the trustee makes an election in writing to prosecute or discontinue the action.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 March 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application / Application by Respondents to Stay Proceedings and for Security for Costs; Costs Orders
- Outcome
- Applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs of and incidental to the hearing; respondents' notices of motion dismissed; entire proceeding stayed by operation of s 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
- Legal Topics
- ['stay of Proceedings' 'security for Costs' 'bankrupt Party in Litigation' 'effect of S 60 of Bankruptcy Act 1966']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application by Respondents to Stay Proceedings and for Security for Costs; Costs Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether s 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) stays actions for all parties if one applicant is an undischarged bankrupt' "Whether Mr Murray's claim fell within the personal injury exception in s 60(4)" "Entitlement to costs relating to respondents' notices of motion"]
Ratio Decidendi
By operation of s 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), the bankruptcy of the second applicant operates to stay the entire proceedings, including those brought by the first applicant, until the trustee makes an election in writing to prosecute or discontinue the action.
Court Disposition
Applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs of and incidental to the hearing; respondents' notices of motion dismissed; entire proceeding stayed by operation of s 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
Orders
- ['Each notice of motion filed on behalf of the respondents on 18 January 2002 be dismissed.' "The applicants pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the hearing on 1 February 2002, including any costs associated with the filing of the respondents' notices of motion."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment