Fuller v Wily [1995] FCA 1205

Fuller v Wily [1995] FCA 1205

The motion for security for costs is refused because the circumstances do not make security necessary under s 30 of the Bankruptcy Act, the appeal does not challenge fact findings, there are minimal or no estate assets likely to be affected, and the creditors funding the trustee can bear the cost of representation if desired.

Parties
Appellant: Michael John Fuller; Respondent: Hugh Jenner Wily
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion for Security for Costs on Appeal
Outcome
Motion for security for costs dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Removal of Trustee, Bankruptcy Administration
Bankruptcy Security for Costs Removal of Trustee Bankruptcy Administration

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael John Fuller

Appellant

Hugh Jenner Wily

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion for Security for Costs on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the appellant bankrupt on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the trustee should be removed due to alleged conflict of interest

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for security for costs is refused because the circumstances do not make security necessary under s 30 of the Bankruptcy Act, the appeal does not challenge fact findings, there are minimal or no estate assets likely to be affected, and the creditors funding the trustee can bear the cost of representation if desired.

Court Disposition

Motion for security for costs dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • That the motion on notice dated 8 August 1995 be dismissed.
  • That there be no order as to costs.