Nati v Bunt [2013] FCA 159
The application for a stay and interlocutory injunction was refused because the balance of convenience did not justify the injunction; the risk of prejudice was more illusory than real given the timing and likelihood of Full Court consideration before any sequestration order.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 March 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Application in Appeal Proceedings / Interlocutory Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['stay of Proceedings' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'bankruptcy Notices' 'balance of Convenience']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application in Appeal Proceedings / Interlocutory Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain bankruptcy and civil proceedings until determination of the appeal' 'Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the stay']
Ratio Decidendi
The application for a stay and interlocutory injunction was refused because the balance of convenience did not justify the injunction; the risk of prejudice was more illusory than real given the timing and likelihood of Full Court consideration before any sequestration order.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- ['The application be dismissed.' "Costs be respondent's costs in the cause."]
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