SMITH v AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED [1995] NSWCA 439

SMITH v AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED [1995] NSWCA 439

The appeal should be expedited because the discharge of the charge would make the appeal futile, and continuation of the charge would delay winding up.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Smith; First Opponent/respondent: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited; Third Opponent: third opponent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Expedition
Outcome
Orders in notice of motion (orders 1–4) made; appeal hearing expedited.
Legal Topics
Subrogation, Charges Over Company Property, Expedited Hearing
Banking Law Insolvency Subrogation Charges Over Company Property Expedited Hearing

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 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smith

Claimant/appellant

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

First Opponent/respondent

third opponent

Third Opponent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Expedition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be expedited to prevent the discharge of a company charge pending appeal determination

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal should be expedited because the discharge of the charge would make the appeal futile, and continuation of the charge would delay winding up.

Court Disposition

Orders in notice of motion (orders 1–4) made; appeal hearing expedited.

Orders

  • Orders 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the notice of motion made