Ray v Perrett (No. 4) [2008] FCA 420

Ray v Perrett (No. 4) [2008] FCA 420

No proper basis was established for the adjournment; a litigant cannot expect an adjournment simply by request when no proper ground is advanced. Given the application and its history, indemnity costs are appropriate.

Parties
Applicant: Greg Ray; Respondent: Paul Perrett
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Creditor's Petition / Adjournment Application
Outcome
Adjournment application dismissed. Respondent ordered to pay applicant's costs on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Costs
Bankruptcy Adjournment Costs

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greg Ray

Applicant

Paul Perrett

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Creditor's Petition / Adjournment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an adjournment of the proceedings should be granted to allow for a 'private administrative process'
  2. 2 Appropriateness of indemnity costs

Ratio Decidendi

No proper basis was established for the adjournment; a litigant cannot expect an adjournment simply by request when no proper ground is advanced. Given the application and its history, indemnity costs are appropriate.

Court Disposition

Adjournment application dismissed. Respondent ordered to pay applicant's costs on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • The application of the respondent, Mr Perrett, for an adjournment of the proceedings is dismissed.
  • Mr Perrett pay the costs of the applicant, Mr Ray, and that such costs be paid on an indemnity basis.