Stankovic v Van Der Velde [2013] FCAFC 57

Stankovic v Van Der Velde [2013] FCAFC 57

The appellant's grounds of appeal were unsubstantiated and the matters he sought to agitate concerning the validity of the sequestration order and the appointment of the Trustees were not open on an appeal from the primary judge's s 178(1) determination. The appeal was therefore dismissed, leave to rely on further affidavits was refused, and the proposed intervention was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Appeal / Appeal From Orders Made in Proceedings Under S 178(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; leave to rely on affidavits refused; interlocutory application for intervention dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sequestration Order' 'trustees in Bankruptcy' 'protected Money' 'appeal' 'intervention' 'annulment of Bankruptcy']
['bankruptcy and Insolvency'] ['sequestration Order' 'trustees in Bankruptcy' 'protected Money' 'appeal' 'intervention' 'annulment of Bankruptcy']

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

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Appeal / Appeal From Orders Made in Proceedings Under S 178(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant could challenge the validity of the sequestration order and the appointment of the trustees on an appeal from orders made in proceedings under s 178(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).' "Whether the appellant's grounds of appeal were substantiated." 'Whether leave should be granted for the appellant to rely on affidavits made on 9 and 14 May 2013.' 'Whether the interlocutory application by Rodney Kent and Tim Orlizki for leave to intervene should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's grounds of appeal were unsubstantiated and the matters he sought to agitate concerning the validity of the sequestration order and the appointment of the Trustees were not open on an appeal from the primary judge's s 178(1) determination. The appeal was therefore dismissed, leave to rely on further affidavits was refused, and the proposed intervention was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; leave to rely on affidavits refused; interlocutory application for intervention dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave for the appellant to rely upon his affidavits made on 9 and 14 May 2013 is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'The appellant pay the costs of each of the respondents.' 'The interlocutory application of Rodney Kent and Tim Orlizki dated 31 January 2013 is dismissed.' 'The judgment of the primary judge of 14...