Russo v Private Funds Management Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 31

The applicant did not establish a case of arguable error in the Federal Magistrate's reasons, and even if arguable error had been shown, the balance of convenience would not favour granting a stay; therefore the stay application was refused.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 28 January 2011
Procedural Posture: Application for a Stay of a Sequestration Order / Notice of Motion Dated 21 January 2011 After a Federal Magistrate Refused an Application for Review of the Sequestration Order
Outcome: Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics: ['stay of Sequestration Order' "review of Registrar's Order" 'arguable Case' 'balance of Convenience']

['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure'] ['stay of Sequestration Order' "review of Registrar's Order" 'arguable Case' '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

Procedural Posture

Application for a Stay of a Sequestration Order / Notice of Motion Dated 21 January 2011 After a Federal Magistrate Refused an Application for Review of the Sequestration Order

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the applicant established an arguable case for a stay of the sequestration order.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay.']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

['The Notice of Motion dated 21 January 2011 be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the first and second respondents of and incidental to the Notice of Motion dated 21 January 2011.']