MacMahon v Block [2010] FCA 947

MacMahon v Block [2010] FCA 947

Section 60(2) of Bankruptcy Act 1966 does not operate to stay applicant's proceedings because they are distinct from those commenced by his bankrupt brother; the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's refusal to stay or adjourn applicant's proceedings was not an error of law and the application did not raise a serious question to be tried.

Parties
Applicant: Gregory MacMahon; First Respondent: Julian Block, Deputy President Administrative Appeals Tribunal; Second Respondent: Stephen Frost, Senior Member Administrative Appeals Tribunal; Third Respondent: Commissioner of Taxation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Judgment Refusing Injunction
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction refused; applicant ordered to pay third respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Stay of Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Effect of Bankruptcy on Proceedings
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Administrative Law Taxation Law Interlocutory Injunction Stay of Proceedings Jurisdiction of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Effect of Bankruptcy on Proceedings

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory MacMahon

Applicant

Julian Block, Deputy President Administrative Appeals Tribunal

First Respondent

Stephen Frost, Senior Member Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Commissioner of Taxation

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Judgment Refusing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 operates to stay the applicant's proceedings due to bankruptcy of his brother
  2. 2 Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's refusal to adjourn or stay the proceedings constituted an error of law
  3. 3 Whether the actions brought by the MacMahon brothers were consolidated into one proceeding

Ratio Decidendi

Section 60(2) of Bankruptcy Act 1966 does not operate to stay applicant's proceedings because they are distinct from those commenced by his bankrupt brother; the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's refusal to stay or adjourn applicant's proceedings was not an error of law and the application did not raise a serious question to be tried.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction refused; applicant ordered to pay third respondent's costs.

Orders

  • The application for an interlocutory injunction is refused.
  • The applicant pay the third respondent's costs.