Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 362

Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 362

The interim relief was refused because Ms Storry failed to show any arguable point or rational prospect of success in her appeal from the sequestration order. The primary Judge applied the Bankruptcy Act to an unpaid judgment debt and a served creditor's petition, s 60(4) did not assist, there was no basis for going behind the Magistrates Court judgment or costs order, and the appeal grounds were either unmeritorious, incompetent, vague or meaningless. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who was entitled to the fruits of judgments after almost six years of litigation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Sequestration Order; Application for Interim Stay/restraint Orders / Interim Application on Appeal
Outcome
Interim orders refused.
Legal Topics
['stay Pending Appeal' 'sequestration Order' "creditor's Petition" 'arguable Point or Rational Prospect of Success' 'balance of Convenience']
['bankruptcy' 'practice and Procedure' 'insolvency'] ['stay Pending Appeal' 'sequestration Order' "creditor's Petition" 'arguable Point or Rational Prospect of Success' 'balance of Convenience']

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

Appeal From a Sequestration Order; Application for Interim Stay/restraint Orders / Interim Application on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interim orders should be made restraining the appointed trustee from acting and allowing the appellant to act as if the sequestration order had not been made pending appeal.' 'Whether the proposed appeal raised an arguable point or had a rational prospect of success.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay or interim restraint orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interim relief was refused because Ms Storry failed to show any arguable point or rational prospect of success in her appeal from the sequestration order. The primary Judge applied the Bankruptcy Act to an unpaid judgment debt and a served creditor's petition, s 60(4) did not assist, there was no basis for going behind the Magistrates Court judgment or costs order, and the appeal grounds were either unmeritorious, incompetent, vague or meaningless. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who was entitled to the fruits of judgments after almost six years of litigation.

Court Disposition

Interim orders refused.

Orders

  • ['The interim orders sought by the appellant in her notice of appeal filed on 30 March 2022 be refused.']