Martin v Individual Homes Pty Limited (in liq) ACN 008 495 761 [2000] FCA 1073

Martin v Individual Homes Pty Limited (in liq) ACN 008 495 761 [2000] FCA 1073

The Court dismissed the stay application because no procedural irregularity in the issue or enforcement of the writ of possession was shown, no substantial basis was identified for prospects of success in the special leave application or the winding-up appeal, and the hardship of eviction did not, without an arguable legal foundation, justify staying the possession order or its execution.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Notice of Motion Seeking a Stay of an Order for Possession or Writ of Possession / Full Court Determination of Notice of Motion Filed on 14 July 2000
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; appellants ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application; appeal directed to be listed in the next callover for appeals in the Australian Capital Territory.
Legal Topics
['stay Pending Appeal' 'writ of Possession' 'order for Possession' "liquidator's Possession of Company Property" 'winding Up' 'balance of Convenience']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'property Law' 'corporations Insolvency'] ['stay Pending Appeal' 'writ of Possession' 'order for Possession' "liquidator's Possession of Company Property" 'winding Up' 'balance of Convenience']

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 and Notice of Motion Seeking a Stay of an Order for Possession or Writ of Possession / Full Court Determination of Notice of Motion Filed on 14 July 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the order for possession, the writ of possession or its execution should be stayed pending the hearing of the appeal.' 'Whether alleged procedural irregularities affected the issue or validity of the writ of possession.' "Whether the appellants' application for special leave to the High Court, or the reserved decision in proceeding A 44 of 1999, provided a sufficient basis for a stay." "Whether the balance of convenience justified preserving the appellants' possession of the property as their matrimonial home."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the stay application because no procedural irregularity in the issue or enforcement of the writ of possession was shown, no substantial basis was identified for prospects of success in the special leave application or the winding-up appeal, and the hardship of eviction did not, without an arguable legal foundation, justify staying the possession order or its execution.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; appellants ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application; appeal directed to be listed in the next callover for appeals in the Australian Capital Territory.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed on 14 July 2000 in matter A 49 of 2000 is dismissed.' 'The appellants pay the costs of the respondents of the application.' 'The appeal be listed in the next callover for appeals in the Australian Capital Territory.']