Mayger, Neil Alexander & Anor v Prentice, Maxwell William & Anor [1998] FCA 1386

Mayger, Neil Alexander & Anor v Prentice, Maxwell William & Anor [1998] FCA 1386

The application for adjournment was refused because the applicants could and should have arranged for the new evidence months earlier, and there was insufficient material indicating the evidence would be favourable or relevant. The subsequent applications were dismissed as withdrawn or without merit, and indemnity costs were ordered.

Parties
Applicant: Neil Alexander Mayger; Applicant: Margaret Walker; First Respondent: Maxwell William Prentice; Second Respondent: Westpac Banking Corporation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceeding / Adjournment Application and Dismissal of Applications
Outcome
All applications dismissed; indemnity costs ordered against applicants for dismissed applications, with no order as to costs for particular notice of motion by consent.
Legal Topics
Application for Adjournment, Annulment of Sequestration Order, Indemnity Costs
Bankruptcy Practice and Procedure Application for Adjournment Annulment of Sequestration Order Indemnity Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil Alexander Mayger

Applicant

Margaret Walker

Applicant

Maxwell William Prentice

First Respondent

Westpac Banking Corporation

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Proceeding / Adjournment Application and Dismissal of Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an adjournment of the proceedings should be granted to allow for further evidence from the applicants' former solicitor
  2. 2 Whether the applications to set aside sequestration orders and to permit another action to proceed should be dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

The application for adjournment was refused because the applicants could and should have arranged for the new evidence months earlier, and there was insufficient material indicating the evidence would be favourable or relevant. The subsequent applications were dismissed as withdrawn or without merit, and indemnity costs were ordered.

Court Disposition

All applications dismissed; indemnity costs ordered against applicants for dismissed applications, with no order as to costs for particular notice of motion by consent.

Orders

  • Application for adjournment dismissed.
  • Notice of Annulment Application filed 13 March 1998 dismissed.