Solomon v Green [2001] FCA 974

Solomon v Green [2001] FCA 974

The stay was refused because the material did not disclose any arguable case that Wilcox J's discretion miscarried in refusing an adjournment, any arguable case that a decision not to go behind the judgment debt was flawed, or any other basis on which a stay could be granted; additionally, no explanation was given for the appellant's failure to use the liberty to apply in respect of Stone J's earlier order dismissing a stay motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Motion for Stay of a Sequestration Order on Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Motion Filed on 18 June 2001 Heard and Determined
Outcome
The appellant's motion for a stay was refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Sequestration Order' "creditor's Petition" 'act of Bankruptcy' 'bankruptcy Notice' 'going Behind a Judgment Debt' 'adjournment' 'successive Applications']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['stay of Sequestration Order' "creditor's Petition" 'act of Bankruptcy' 'bankruptcy Notice' 'going Behind a Judgment Debt' 'adjournment' 'successive Applications']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Motion for Stay of a Sequestration Order on Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Motion Filed on 18 June 2001 Heard and Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant should be granted a stay of the sequestration order made by Wilcox J on 5 June 2001.' "Whether there was an arguable case that Wilcox J's refusal to adjourn the hearing of the creditor's petition miscarried." 'Whether there was an arguable case that any decision not to go behind the judgment debt was flawed.' "Whether the appellant gave an explanation for making a successive application for the same relief rather than applying in respect of Stone J's order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because the material did not disclose any arguable case that Wilcox J's discretion miscarried in refusing an adjournment, any arguable case that a decision not to go behind the judgment debt was flawed, or any other basis on which a stay could be granted; additionally, no explanation was given for the appellant's failure to use the liberty to apply in respect of Stone J's earlier order dismissing a stay motion.

Court Disposition

The appellant's motion for a stay was refused with costs.

Orders

  • ["The appellant's motion, notice of which was filed on 18 June 2001, be refused." "The appellant pay the respondents' costs."]