George v Fletcher (Trustee) (No 3) [2012] FCAFC 188

George v Fletcher (Trustee) (No 3) [2012] FCAFC 188

The stay application was refused because there was no substantial prospect that special leave would be granted and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents; the applicant's submissions were unsupported by evidence and would not achieve the stated objectives.

Parties
Appellant: Lauren Kay George; First Respondent: William John Fletcher as Trustee for the Bankrupt Estate of Lauren Kay George; Second Respondent: Dr Peter Ironside Pty Ltd (ACN 008 126 387); Third Respondent: Peter Douglas Ironside; Fourth Respondent: National Australia Bank
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Stay of Orders Pending Determination of Special Leave Application to the High Court
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Orders Pending Special Leave Application, Balance of Convenience, Prospects of Success
Practice and Procedure Stay of Orders Pending Special Leave Application Balance of Convenience Prospects of Success

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lauren Kay George

Appellant

William John Fletcher as Trustee for the Bankrupt Estate of Lauren Kay George

First Respondent

Dr Peter Ironside Pty Ltd (ACN 008 126 387)

Second Respondent

Peter Douglas Ironside

Third Respondent

National Australia Bank

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Stay of Orders Pending Determination of Special Leave Application to the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of orders should be granted pending the determination of an application for special leave to the High Court

Ratio Decidendi

The stay application was refused because there was no substantial prospect that special leave would be granted and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents; the applicant's submissions were unsupported by evidence and would not achieve the stated objectives.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed

Orders

  • The appellant's application for a stay of Orders 1, 3, 4 and 5 pending the determination of an application for special leave to the High Court be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the respondents' costs of this application.