Binetter v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2011] FCA 1214

Binetter v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2011] FCA 1214

The application for a stay is refused because the applicant did not establish that prejudice or convenience justified suspending the winding up orders pending the High Court proceedings; disruption to liquidation outweighed any prejudice to applicant or public interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Dismissal of Application for Stay of Winding Up Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['standing' 'stay of Proceedings' 'winding Up of Companies' 'judicial Disqualification' 'balance of Convenience']
['corporations Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['standing' 'stay of Proceedings' 'winding Up of Companies' 'judicial Disqualification' 'balance of Convenience']

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

Interlocutory Application / Dismissal of Application for Stay of Winding Up Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judge should disqualify herself due to apprehended bias' 'Whether the applicant has standing to seek a stay' 'Should a stay of winding up orders be granted pending High Court determination']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay is refused because the applicant did not establish that prejudice or convenience justified suspending the winding up orders pending the High Court proceedings; disruption to liquidation outweighed any prejudice to applicant or public interest.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "The applicant bear the first respondent's costs of this application."]