Stankovic v Van Der Velde (No 3) [2013] FCA 183

Stankovic v Van Der Velde (No 3) [2013] FCA 183

The applicant did not establish any persuasive basis for a further stay. No serious attempt was made to identify error in the orders under appeal, the notice of appeal was uninformative, and the pleaded claims in proceeding NSD 1571 of 2012 did not demonstrate that distribution of the estate would render that proceeding nugatory. If dissipation of funds was the concern, the appropriate order would have been a freezing order in proceeding NSD 1571 of 2012, not a stay of the 14 December 2012 orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for a Further Stay of Orders in a Bankruptcy Related Proceeding / Application Filed on 7 February 2013 Seeking a Further Stay of Orders Made on 14 December 2012
Outcome
The interlocutory application filed on 7 February 2013 was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Orders' 'appeal From Orders' 'distribution of Bankrupt Estate' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'freezing Order' 'unconscionable Conduct']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure' 'consumer Law'] ['stay of Orders' 'appeal From Orders' 'distribution of Bankrupt Estate' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'freezing Order' 'unconscionable Conduct']

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

Interlocutory Application for a Further Stay of Orders in a Bankruptcy Related Proceeding / Application Filed on 7 February 2013 Seeking a Further Stay of Orders Made on 14 December 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the orders made on 14 December 2012 should be further stayed because an appeal was on foot.' 'Whether the applicant established any error in the orders made on 14 December 2012.' 'Whether the possibility that the Trustees may distribute property available for distribution justified a stay pending proceeding NSD 1571 of 2012.' "Whether the applicant's concerns about dissipation of funds should instead be addressed by a freezing order in proceeding NSD 1571 of 2012."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish any persuasive basis for a further stay. No serious attempt was made to identify error in the orders under appeal, the notice of appeal was uninformative, and the pleaded claims in proceeding NSD 1571 of 2012 did not demonstrate that distribution of the estate would render that proceeding nugatory. If dissipation of funds was the concern, the appropriate order would have been a freezing order in proceeding NSD 1571 of 2012, not a stay of the 14 December 2012 orders.

Court Disposition

The interlocutory application filed on 7 February 2013 was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application filed on 7 February 2013 be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs."]