Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Prentice v Harrison [2000[ FCA 1764 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications for summary judgment and summary dismissal of cross-claim – whether arguable defence – whether cross-claim arguable – payment out of first mortgage using moneys payable to creditor of bankrupt - subrogation of creditor to security interest of first mortgagee.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss 120, 121, 122. Federal Court Rules, O 20 rr 1, 2. General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner of Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, cited. Dey v Victorian Railway Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62, cited. Ghana Commerical Bank v Chandiram [1960] AC 732, cited. Cochrane v Cochrane (1985) 3 NSWLR 403, cited. Banque Financiere de la Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd [1999] 1 AC 221, cited. State Bank of New South Wales v Geeport Developments Pty Ltd (1991) 5 BPR 11-947, cited. I Jackman, The Varieties of Restitution (1998).
MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE AND MARK JULIAN ROBINSON in their capacity as trustees of the bankrupt estate of GREGORY HARRISON HEALEY v SISTER CONSTANCE MOIRA HARRISON N 7415 of 2000 SACKVILLE J 6 DECEMBER 2000 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 7415 OF 2000
BETWEEN: MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE AND MARK JULIAN ROBINSON in their capacity as trustees of the Bankrupt estate of GREGORY HARRISON HEALEY
AND: APPLICANTS
SISTER CONSTANCE MOIRA HARRISON
RESPONDENT
SISTER CONSTANCE MOIRA HARRISON
CROSS CLAIMANT
COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA
CROSS RESPONDENT
JUDGE: SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER: 6 DECEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicants' amended motion filed on 17 October 2000 be dismissed. 2. The cross-respondent's motion filed on 1 September 2000 be dismissed. 3. The respondent/cross-claimant file and serve any amended defence and cross-claim on or before 31 January 2001. 4. The respondent/cross-claimant file and serve any further evidence on her behalf on or before 31 January 2001. 5. The proceedings be listed for further directions on 23 February 2001. 6. There be no orders as to the costs of the motions.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate