ABIGROUP LTD v SANDTARA PTY LTD; WENKART v PITMAN AND ANOR; ABIGNANO AND ANOR v ABIGROUP LTD [1998] NSWCA 3
Dr Wenkart's inability to pay or provide security for the judgment debt, even if accepted, is not sufficient in this case to warrant a stay of execution. Prejudice feared by Dr Wenkart can be addressed in the ordinary course of Federal Court proceedings regarding bankruptcy. The application for stay is therefore refused and dismissed with costs.
- Parties
- Abigroup Ltd; Sandtara Pty Ltd; Applicant: Dr Wenkart; Respondent: Mr Pitman; Mr Abignano
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 17 April 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Stay Pending Appeal / Interlocutory
- Outcome
- Application for stay refused and dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Bankruptcy Notice, Security for Judgment Debt
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abigroup Ltd
Sandtara Pty Ltd
Dr Wenkart
Applicant
Mr Pitman
Respondent
Mr Abignano
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay Pending Appeal / Interlocutory
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a stay of execution of judgment should be granted pending the outcome of an appeal and related applications.
Ratio Decidendi
Dr Wenkart's inability to pay or provide security for the judgment debt, even if accepted, is not sufficient in this case to warrant a stay of execution. Prejudice feared by Dr Wenkart can be addressed in the ordinary course of Federal Court proceedings regarding bankruptcy. The application for stay is therefore refused and dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
Application for stay refused and dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Application for stay dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment