Gomez v Prentice [2004] FCA 1080

Gomez v Prentice [2004] FCA 1080

The proceedings were dismissed with costs because the application for an adjournment was not made bona fide, there was no prospect of legal aid being granted, the required affidavit did not identify any relevant act, omission or decision, and the application was irregular and unsupported by facts required under s 178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 / Hearing and Final Judgment
Outcome
Proceeding dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'costs' 'requirements for Application Under Bankruptcy Act S 178']
['bankruptcy'] ['adjournment' 'costs' 'requirements for Application Under Bankruptcy Act S 178']

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 Under S 178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 / Hearing and Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's application for adjournment should be granted" 'Whether the proceeding was properly commenced under s 178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966' 'Whether the proceeding should be dismissed with costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were dismissed with costs because the application for an adjournment was not made bona fide, there was no prospect of legal aid being granted, the required affidavit did not identify any relevant act, omission or decision, and the application was irregular and unsupported by facts required under s 178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Court Disposition

Proceeding dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['The proceeding is dismissed with costs.' 'Liberty is given to the respondent, in the event that the costs are not paid by the applicant, to apply to have such costs paid by Mark Gallego.']