RODGERS v CONDON [1995] NSWCA 395

The Court refused to grant expedition or extend the stay since neither the interests of the appellants in remaining as liquidators nor additional costs from appointing new liquidators were sufficient grounds for expedition. Effective management of the winding up required prompt action, making extended stays inappropriate.

Parties: Claimant/appellant: Peter David Rodgers; Claimant/appellant: Geoffrey David McDonald; Respondent: Condon
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 28 August 1995
Procedural Posture: Notice of Motion in Appeal / Application for Expedition and Extension of Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome: Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics: Removal of Liquidators, Expedition of Appeal, Extension of Stay, Costs Orders

Insolvency Corporate Law Removal of Liquidators Expedition of Appeal Extension of Stay Costs 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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Peter David Rodgers

Claimant/appellant

Geoffrey David McDonald

Claimant/appellant

Condon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion in Appeal / Application for Expedition and Extension of Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether appeal should be expedited
2 Whether stay of removal of liquidators should be continued
3 Appropriate orders for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

Notice of Motion for expedition and extension of stay dismissed.
Costs ordered against claimants/appellants.