Darcey, Re P.M. Ex Parte Pre-Term Foundation [1986] FCA 622
The Court dismissed the motion because, assuming it had power to grant a suspension or stay, no ground was made out for exercising discretion: there were no creditors other than the petitioning creditor, the applicant had no assets and no or insignificant income, and there was no present circumstance requiring intervention pending the appeal.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 January 1986
- Procedural Posture
- Bankruptcy / Motion Seeking Suspension or Stay of a Sequestration Order Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; costs reserved.
- Legal Topics
- ['sequestration Order' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'bankruptcy Appeal' 'discretionary Relief']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Motion Seeking Suspension or Stay of a Sequestration Order Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the sequestration order should be suspended or stayed pending the hearing of the appeal.' 'Whether an occasion had been shown for the exercise of discretion to grant relief, assuming the Court had power to do so.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the motion because, assuming it had power to grant a suspension or stay, no ground was made out for exercising discretion: there were no creditors other than the petitioning creditor, the applicant had no assets and no or insignificant income, and there was no present circumstance requiring intervention pending the appeal.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; costs reserved.
Orders
- ['The application is dismissed.' 'Costs are reserved for consideration after the appeal has been dealt with.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment