Carver, P.G.S. v Joyce, B.M - [1990] FCA 793

Re: PETER GEORGE STAR CARVER
And: BRIAN MAXWELL JOYCE and DOUGLAS MAXWELL LANE
No. N G696 of 1990
FED No. 793
Practice and Procedure - Bankruptcy

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Lockhart J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Practice and Procedure - Bankruptcy - Stay - Appeal - Application for stay of sequestration order pending appeal - Time limit of 21 days provided under Bankruptcy Act for maximum length of stay - Power under Federal Court Rules - Whether Court bound by time limit under Bankruptcy Act.

Bankruptcy - Stay - Appeal - Application for stay of sequestration order pending appeal - Time limit of 21 days provided under Bankruptcy Act for maximum length of stay - power under Federal Court Rules - Whether Court bound by time limit under Bankruptcy Act.

Bankruptcy Act 1966: s. 37(1), (2); s. 52(3)

Federal Court Rules: Order 52 rule 17

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 12:12:1990

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P. Strasser

Solicitors for the Applicant: Star Carver and Co.

Counsel for B.M. Joyce: Miss Sally Nash

Solicitors for B.M. Joyce: Denley, Gargett and Baird

Counsel for Official Receiver: Mr G.L. Caddy

Solicitors for Official Receiver: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDER

1. The motion be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondents.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

This is a motion by Peter George Star Carver seeking a stay of the execution of the sequestration order made against his estate by another Judge of this Court on 13 November 1990, pending the determination of an appeal lodged by the applicant to the Full Court of this Court. That appeal is from a judgment of another Judge of this Court of 3 December 1990.

The order of events is of some importance and should be stated. As I said earlier, it was on 13 November 1990 that the sequestration order was made against the estate of the applicant. On 20 November 1990 a Judge of this Court "stayed the sequestration order" until 4 December 1990. I note that 4 December 1990 is the expiration of 21 days from the making of the sequestration order, so I assume that the order made by his Honour on 20 November 1990 was under s. 52(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
On 3 December 1990 the same Judge dismissed the application of the applicant for an order to set aside the sequestration order. On 7 December 1990 the applicant filed a notice of appeal from the order of his Honour of 3 December 1990 dismissing his application to set aside the sequestration order and at the same time filed a notice of motion for an order that the execution of the sequestration order be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal to which I have already referred.
This morning counsel for the applicant seeks the order as set out in paragraph 1 of the notice of motion, and the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Carver, P.G.S. v Joyce, B.M and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1990] FCA 793
Decision Date: 12 DECEMBER 1990

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Carver, P.G.S. v Joyce, B.M. involved a dispute between the applicant, Carver, and the respondent, Joyce, concerning an order for sequestration and its stay pending an appeal. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Carver sought to stay the sequestration order issued against him, pending the outcome of an appeal, and applied for an extension of the statutory time limit for such a stay as provided under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The central legal issue for the court to determine was whether it was bound by the statutory time limit for a stay of a sequestration order when exercising its discretion under the Federal Court Rules to grant such a stay.

The court considered the statutory provisions and the Federal Court Rules, concluding that while the Bankruptcy Act sets out the maximum period for a stay, it does not preclude the court from exercising its discretion to extend this period under the Federal Court Rules. The court found that the statutory time limit is a guideline rather than a strict restriction and that the court retains the authority to make decisions in individual cases. The court held that it was not bound by the statutory time limit and could consider the application for an extended stay on its merits.

Given this reasoning, the court dismissed Carver's application for an extended stay of the sequestration order. The court found that the application did not meet the criteria for an extended stay under the Federal Court Rules, and accordingly, the motion was dismissed. Additionally, the court ordered that Carver pay the costs of the respondents, reflecting the unsuccessful nature of the application.

No further orders were made beyond those mentioned. The court's decision underscores the importance of considering both statutory provisions and court rules when determining the appropriate duration of a stay in bankruptcy cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The motion be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondents.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.