Day, in the matter of Gould v Gould [2000] FCA 1427

Day, in the matter of Gould v Gould [2000] FCA 1427

Although Mr Gould genuinely believed he had a grievance, the Court considered the bias ground wholly without merit and was not persuaded that the other grounds gave any real prospect of the appeal succeeding. Because pursuing the appeal would be futile without a stay, a short stay was extended, but any further stay to the determination of the appeal was conditioned on Mr Gould providing $20,000 security for the respondents' appeal costs, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal; Application for Stay of Proceedings Under a Sequestration Order / Application to Extend Stay Pending Determination of Appeal From Sequestration Order
Outcome
Stay extended to 19 October 2000; further stay pending appeal conditional on security for costs; appeal to be dismissed if security not provided; appeal expedited; bankrupt to pay costs of the day.
Legal Topics
['stay of Sequestration Order' 'security for Costs' 'appeal From Sequestration Order' 'alleged Bias' 'statement of Affairs']
['bankruptcy' 'appellate Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['stay of Sequestration Order' 'security for Costs' 'appeal From Sequestration Order' 'alleged Bias' 'statement of Affairs']

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

Bankruptcy Appeal; Application for Stay of Proceedings Under a Sequestration Order / Application to Extend Stay Pending Determination of Appeal From Sequestration Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proceedings under the sequestration order should be stayed pending determination of the appeal.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success to justify a stay without conditions.' 'Whether allegations of bias against Conti J provided an arguable ground of appeal.' 'Whether claims, alleged malicious conduct, prospective funding, or asserted intellectual property justified refusing or adjourning the sequestration order.' "Whether security for the respondents' costs should be required as a condition of continuing the stay and appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although Mr Gould genuinely believed he had a grievance, the Court considered the bias ground wholly without merit and was not persuaded that the other grounds gave any real prospect of the appeal succeeding. Because pursuing the appeal would be futile without a stay, a short stay was extended, but any further stay to the determination of the appeal was conditioned on Mr Gould providing $20,000 security for the respondents' appeal costs, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Stay extended to 19 October 2000; further stay pending appeal conditional on security for costs; appeal to be dismissed if security not provided; appeal expedited; bankrupt to pay costs of the day.

Orders

  • ['The stay of proceedings under the sequestration order be extended up to and including 19 October 2000.' "If on or before 19 October 2000 security for the respondents' costs of the appeal in the sum of $20,000, in a form satisfactory to the Registrar, be provided by Mr Gould, the stay referred to in order 1 above...