Ollis v Rayner [2007] FCA 2012
The restraining order, which provided the appellant with liberty to apply to vary, did not operate as a stay for purposes of s 41(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act because the appellant could have applied to permit payment of the judgment debt; therefore, the bankruptcy notice was valid and the sequestration order appropriate.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 19 December 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['sequestration Order' 'restraining Order' 'stay of Execution' 'ancillary Order']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether a restraining order under s 10 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) operates as a stay for purposes of s 41(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)' 'Whether appellant was prevented in a practical sense from paying the judgment debt due to the restraining order']
Ratio Decidendi
The restraining order, which provided the appellant with liberty to apply to vary, did not operate as a stay for purposes of s 41(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act because the appellant could have applied to permit payment of the judgment debt; therefore, the bankruptcy notice was valid and the sequestration order appropriate.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellant is to pay the respondents' costs."]
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