Day v Gould, in the matter of Gould [2002] FCA 936

Day v Gould, in the matter of Gould [2002] FCA 936

The Court has no power to grant the relief sought regarding suspension of the sequestration order, and there is no evidentiary basis to strike out the summonses; therefore, the notice of motion is dismissed with costs.

Parties
First Applicant: Julian Day; Second Applicant: Alan Manly; Respondent: Stephen Gould
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceeding / Notice of Motion; Application for Orders
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Sequestration Order, Application to Suspend or Vary Orders, Summonses to Give Evidence
Bankruptcy Sequestration Order Application to Suspend or Vary Orders Summonses to Give Evidence

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 1 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julian Day

First Applicant

Alan Manly

Second Applicant

Stephen Gould

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Proceeding / Notice of Motion; Application for Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has power to suspend or vary a sequestration order under s 37(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether summonses to give evidence should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has no power to grant the relief sought regarding suspension of the sequestration order, and there is no evidentiary basis to strike out the summonses; therefore, the notice of motion is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The notice of motion is dismissed with costs.