Maytom v Prentice [2013] FCA 766

Maytom v Prentice [2013] FCA 766

Mr Maytom did not identify any arguable legal error in the discretionary decision of the primary judge to refuse a stay of execution of the writ of possession, and thus there was no sufficient doubt or injustice to warrant the grant of leave to appeal.

Parties
Applicant: Gary Allan Maytom; Respondent: Maxwell William Prentice
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Discretionary Judgments, Possession of Property, Bankruptcy Trustee's Powers
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Discretionary Judgments Possession of Property Bankruptcy Trustee's Powers

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 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Allan Maytom

Applicant

Maxwell William Prentice

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against refusal to stay a writ of possession in bankruptcy proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Maytom did not identify any arguable legal error in the discretionary decision of the primary judge to refuse a stay of execution of the writ of possession, and thus there was no sufficient doubt or injustice to warrant the grant of leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
  • The respondent trustee's costs of the application for leave to appeal be costs in the administration of the estate.