Van Haeff, Robert William Franklin v Binder Hamlyn & Co & Anor [1982] FCA 320

Van Haeff, Robert William Franklin v Binder Hamlyn & Co & Anor [1982] FCA 320

There was no rational basis shown for the allegations made by the applicant; thus, the application for stay and injunction is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Robert William Franklin Van Haeff; Respondents: Binder Hamlyn & Co and Another
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 1982
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Application for Stay and Injunction Pending Appeal / Application for Stay and Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Sequestration Order, Injunction Pending Appeal, Jurisdictional Challenge, Bankruptcy Order Enforcement
Bankruptcy Stay of Sequestration Order Injunction Pending Appeal Jurisdictional Challenge Bankruptcy Order Enforcement

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert William Franklin Van Haeff

Applicant

Binder Hamlyn & Co and Another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Application for Stay and Injunction Pending Appeal / Application for Stay and Injunction Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a rational basis for challenging the validity of the sequestration order and the jurisdiction of relevant laws, courts, and judges
  2. 2 Whether a stay of the sequestration order and an injunction should be granted pending proposed appeal to the Privy Council

Ratio Decidendi

There was no rational basis shown for the allegations made by the applicant; thus, the application for stay and injunction is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The Applicant pay the Respondents costs of and incidental to the application.