Selig v Wealthsure Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 685

Selig v Wealthsure Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 685

The application for leave to appeal is refused because no arguable error by the primary judge is demonstrated: all relevant discretionary factors were considered, including the availability of insurance, risk of dissipation, and need for protection of the applicants; differences in discretionary weight do not warrant Full Court reconsideration.

Parties
First Applicant: Ronald Selig; Second Applicant: Janina Selig; First Respondent: Wealthsure Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: David Bertram (by his Trustee in Bankruptcy Insolvency Trustee Service of Australia)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Refused
Outcome
application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal, Costs, Insurance
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Leave to Appeal Costs Insurance

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Selig

First Applicant

Janina Selig

Second Applicant

Wealthsure Pty Ltd

First Respondent

David Bertram (by his Trustee in Bankruptcy Insolvency Trustee Service of Australia)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders granting a stay of execution on condition of payment into Court
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in exercising discretion in making a conditional stay order

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal is refused because no arguable error by the primary judge is demonstrated: all relevant discretionary factors were considered, including the availability of insurance, risk of dissipation, and need for protection of the applicants; differences in discretionary weight do not warrant Full Court reconsideration.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal from interlocutory Orders 4 and 5 made on 25 June 2013 is refused.
  • Costs of the application to be the costs of the respondent on the appeal in matter SAD 97 of 2013.