McKellar v PCS Resources Ltd [2002] FCA 123

McKellar v PCS Resources Ltd [2002] FCA 123

The applicant was not entitled to an interlocutory injunction because he did not establish a sufficiently arguable case that s 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) stayed the pre-bankruptcy costs orders or their taxation, particularly given the unexplained delay in bringing the application and the balance of convenience against deferring a taxation already scheduled for that afternoon.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Application for an Interlocutory Injunction to Stay Taxation of a Bill of Costs / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings Under Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth) S 60(2)' 'taxation of Costs' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'costs Orders Made Prior to Bankruptcy']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['stay of Proceedings Under Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth) S 60(2)' 'taxation of Costs' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'costs Orders Made Prior to Bankruptcy']

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 Application for an Interlocutory Injunction to Stay Taxation of a Bill of Costs / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) operated to stay proceedings number VG 555 of 1998 until the Trustee in Bankruptcy received the notification referred to in that section.' 'Whether s 60(2) operated to stay costs orders made against the applicants before bankruptcy.' 'Whether the applicant established a sufficiently arguable case and balance of convenience to justify deferring the scheduled taxation of costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not entitled to an interlocutory injunction because he did not establish a sufficiently arguable case that s 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) stayed the pre-bankruptcy costs orders or their taxation, particularly given the unexplained delay in bringing the application and the balance of convenience against deferring a taxation already scheduled for that afternoon.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings be dismissed with costs.']