Tov-Lev v Lowbeer (No 3) [2014] FCA 699

Tov-Lev v Lowbeer (No 3) [2014] FCA 699

The stay was refused because, on the material before the Court, the prospects of special leave being granted were remote, the applicants had not made out an arguable ground of appeal, and the evidence did not show that the balance of convenience or any identified prejudice outweighed the public interest in the trustee taking necessary steps pending the special leave application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Proceedings Under Sequestration Orders Pending Determination of Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court / Interlocutory Application Filed on 30 May 2014; Paragraph 1 Determined by Duty Judge
Outcome
Application in paragraph 1 of the interlocutory application filed on 30 May 2014 refused; balance of interlocutory application stood over; applicants ordered to pay respondent's costs of that application; no order as to trustee's costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings' 'sequestration Orders' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'balance of Convenience' 'arguable Ground of Appeal']
['practice and Procedure' 'bankruptcy'] ['stay of Proceedings' 'sequestration Orders' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'balance of Convenience' 'arguable Ground of Appeal']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Proceedings Under Sequestration Orders Pending Determination of Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court / Interlocutory Application Filed on 30 May 2014; Paragraph 1 Determined by Duty Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether all proceedings under the sequestration orders against each applicant should be stayed pending determination of the application for special leave to appeal to the High Court.' 'Whether the applicants raised an arguable ground of appeal or whether the prospects of special leave being granted were remote.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because, on the material before the Court, the prospects of special leave being granted were remote, the applicants had not made out an arguable ground of appeal, and the evidence did not show that the balance of convenience or any identified prejudice outweighed the public interest in the trustee taking necessary steps pending the special leave application.

Court Disposition

Application in paragraph 1 of the interlocutory application filed on 30 May 2014 refused; balance of interlocutory application stood over; applicants ordered to pay respondent's costs of that application; no order as to trustee's costs.

Orders

  • ['The application in paragraph 1 of the interlocutory application filed on 30 May 2014 be refused.' 'The balance of the interlocutory application be stood over to be dealt with by the Court at a time to be notified to the parties.' "The applicants pay the respondent's costs of the application in paragraph 1 of the...