Re Basile, Tony (also known as Basile, Orlando) Ex parte Ancich, Eric John (trading as John Ancich & Co.) [1979] FCA 109

Re Basile, Tony (also known as Basile, Orlando) Ex parte Ancich, Eric John (trading as John Ancich & Co.) [1979] FCA 109

The trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing an adjournment; at the date of the sequestration order the appellant was indebted to the respondent for a sufficient amount to support bankruptcy proceedings, and the affidavits in support were adequate.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Tony Basile also known as Orlando Basile; Respondent: Eric John Ancich trading as John Ancich & Co.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 1979
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Queensland Exercising Federal Bankruptcy Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sequestration Order, Bankruptcy Proceedings, Adjournment of Proceedings, Discretion of Trial Judge
Bankruptcy Sequestration Order Bankruptcy Proceedings Adjournment of Proceedings Discretion of Trial Judge

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tony Basile also known as Orlando Basile

Appellant

Eric John Ancich trading as John Ancich & Co.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Queensland Exercising Federal Bankruptcy Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to grant an adjournment of the sequestration order proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in not dismissing the petition for a sequestration order

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing an adjournment; at the date of the sequestration order the appellant was indebted to the respondent for a sufficient amount to support bankruptcy proceedings, and the affidavits in support were adequate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and of the motion to dismiss for want of prosecution.