Beames v Rigby [2002] FCA 806

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Beames v Rigby [2002] FCA 806 BANKRUPTCY – motion for a stay of sequestration order until the appeal against the sequestration order is heard – whether there is an arguable point on the proposed appeal – whether the balance of convenience favours the granting of a stay

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 41(7) and 60(2)

Freeman v National Australia Bank Limited [2002] FCA 427 followed Thomas v St George Bank Ltd [1999] FCA 166 followed DOUGLAS MACLEOD BEAMES v GEOFFREY IAN RIGBY Q 88 OF 2002 DRUMMOND J BRISBANE 18 JUNE 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 88 OF 2002

BETWEEN: DOUGLAS MACLEOD BEAMES

APPLICANT

AND: GEOFFREY IAN RIGBY

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: DRUMMOND J

DATE OF ORDER: 18 JUNE 2002

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The notice of motion filed 11 June 2002 be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the notice of motion.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 88 OF 2002

BETWEEN: DOUGLAS MACLEOD BEAMES

APPLICANT

AND: GEOFFREY IAN RIGBY

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: DRUMMOND J

DATE: 18 JUNE 2002

PLACE: BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 The applicant, Mr Beames, by notice of motion filed 11 June 2002 seeks the stay of a sequestration order made on 30 May 2002 by a Federal Magistrate. I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction to grant the stay sought, which is the stay of proceedings under the sequestration order, until the determination of the appeal which Mr Beames has lodged. See Freeman v National Australia Bank Limited [2002] FCA 427 at [3]. 2 The considerations upon which the outcome of the motion depends are set out in that case at par 4, where Spender J says: