Hargraves Secured Investments Limited v Slaven [2013] NSWSC 1314

Hargraves Secured Investments Limited v Slaven [2013] NSWSC 1314

The stay was refused because the application was made at the very latest hour without prior notice to Hargraves, deferral would cause Hargraves considerable further loss and delay, Ms Waller had had sufficient time since Slattery J's judgment to take action, there was no real basis for the contention that s 27 of the Bankruptcy Act denied this Court jurisdiction, and the special leave application from Perram J's decision did not appear to have any significant likelihood of success or raise a matter of public importance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Writ of Possession / Urgent Application Before Duty Judge
Outcome
Application for stay of writ of possession refused.
Legal Topics
['stay of Writ of Possession' 'irregular Judgment' 'exclusive Bankruptcy Jurisdiction' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'summary Judgment for Possession' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'bankruptcy' 'mortgage Possession' 'farm Debt Mediation'] ['stay of Writ of Possession' 'irregular Judgment' 'exclusive Bankruptcy Jurisdiction' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'summary Judgment for Possession' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Writ of Possession / Urgent Application Before Duty Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the writ of possession due to be executed on 10 September 2013 should be stayed.' 'Whether the orders made by Slattery J on 13 June 2013 should be set aside as irregular and made without regard to s 27 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.' "Whether execution should be stayed until determination of Ms Waller's application for special leave to appeal from the judgment of Perram J."]

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because the application was made at the very latest hour without prior notice to Hargraves, deferral would cause Hargraves considerable further loss and delay, Ms Waller had had sufficient time since Slattery J's judgment to take action, there was no real basis for the contention that s 27 of the Bankruptcy Act denied this Court jurisdiction, and the special leave application from Perram J's decision did not appear to have any significant likelihood of success or raise a matter of public importance.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of writ of possession refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for a stay of the writ is dismissed.' "The second defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs."]