Watts v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited (No 4) [2011] FCA 310

Watts v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited (No 4) [2011] FCA 310

The stay was refused because the prospects of special leave being granted were remote: the proposed appeal concerned only the construction of particular orders in a particular factual context, raised no question of law of public importance, did not require resolution of conflicting authority, and was not shown to be required by the interests of the administration of justice. The applicants did not identify error in Katzmann J's reasoning, and the evidence of hardship did not justify a stay.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Application to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal to the High Court / Notice of Motion Dated 21 March 2011 After Dismissal of the Applicants' Appeal by Katzmann J and While an Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court Remained to Be Determined
Outcome
The applicants' notice of motion was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings' 'sequestration Order' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'bankruptcy Notice' 'construction of Court Orders']
['practice and Procedure' 'bankruptcy'] ['stay of Proceedings' 'sequestration Order' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'bankruptcy Notice' 'construction of Court Orders']

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 to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal to the High Court / Notice of Motion Dated 21 March 2011 After Dismissal of the Applicants' Appeal by Katzmann J and While an Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court Remained to Be Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether proceedings under the sequestration order should be stayed until determination of the applicants' High Court appeal or special leave application." 'Whether there was a real, as opposed to remote or insubstantial, prospect that special leave to appeal would be granted.' "Whether the issue concerning the construction of Jagot J's orders involved a question of law of public importance or otherwise warranted consideration by the High Court."]

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because the prospects of special leave being granted were remote: the proposed appeal concerned only the construction of particular orders in a particular factual context, raised no question of law of public importance, did not require resolution of conflicting authority, and was not shown to be required by the interests of the administration of justice. The applicants did not identify error in Katzmann J's reasoning, and the evidence of hardship did not justify a stay.

Court Disposition

The applicants' notice of motion was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' notice of motion dated 21 March 2011 be dismissed." "The applicants pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the notice of motion."]