Le v Pascoe, [2000] FCA 540
Dr Le did not satisfy s139ZU(2) because the proposed overseas travel was to improve his qualifications and future income prospects, not because it was necessary for him to leave Australia in order to continue to derive income; on the evidence he was able to earn income in Australia as a medical practitioner.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 April 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Application for an Order Under S139 ZU of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 in a Bankrupt Estate / Extempore Reasons for Judgment
- Outcome
- Application refused.
- Legal Topics
- ["bankrupt's Permission to Leave Australia" 'income Contributions' 'statutory Criteria Under S139 Zu']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order Under S139 ZU of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 in a Bankrupt Estate / Extempore Reasons for Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the bankrupt should be permitted under s139ZU of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to leave Australia to attend a cosmetic surgery conference in Canada.' 'Whether leaving Australia to attend the conference was necessary for the bankrupt to continue to derive income.']
Ratio Decidendi
Dr Le did not satisfy s139ZU(2) because the proposed overseas travel was to improve his qualifications and future income prospects, not because it was necessary for him to leave Australia in order to continue to derive income; on the evidence he was able to earn income in Australia as a medical practitioner.
Court Disposition
Application refused.
Orders
- ['The application for an order under s139ZU of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 be refused.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment