Magarditch v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1999] FCA 502

Magarditch v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1999] FCA 502

No substantive basis has been pleaded or established in evidence to set aside orders for possession or to grant a stay; there is no arguable case justifying restraint on enforcement; issues raised have already been litigated and rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Motion for Stay / Interlocutory Application After Trial Judgment, Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed. Costs ordered against first applicant.
Legal Topics
['stay of Execution' 'orders for Possession' 'appeals' "liquidator's Conduct"]
['civil Procedure' 'banking and Finance' 'insolvency'] ['stay of Execution' 'orders for Possession' 'appeals' "liquidator's 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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Motion for Stay / Interlocutory Application After Trial Judgment, Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a stay should be granted to restrain the Bank from taking possession of the property pending appeal' 'Whether proposed amended pleadings or existing material provide an arguable basis to set aside possession orders' 'Whether allegations against the liquidator or Bank justify delaying enforcement of possession']

Ratio Decidendi

No substantive basis has been pleaded or established in evidence to set aside orders for possession or to grant a stay; there is no arguable case justifying restraint on enforcement; issues raised have already been litigated and rejected.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Costs ordered against first applicant.

Orders

  • ['The motions filed on 19 April 1999 and 21 April 1999 be dismissed.' "The first applicant pay the respondents' costs of the motions."]