Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kellow v Dudzinski [2003] FCA 143 BANKRUPTCY – whether the making of a sequestration order prevents the bankrupt from appealing any such order – whether a sequestration order is "property" which vests with the Trustee Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24 Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 60
Jury v Westpac Banking Corporation & Anor (Emmett J, 4 November 1997, unreported) affirmed AYNSLEY KELLOW and OTHERS v WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI No Q 7022 of 2002 SPENDER J BRISBANE 3 MARCH 2003
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 7022 OF 2002
BETWEEN: AYNSLEY KELLOW
FIRST APPLICANT
ROY RICKSON
SECOND APPLICANT
ERROL STOCK
THIRD APPLICANT
BILL HOGARTH
FOURTH APPLICANT
CORDIA CHU
FIFTH APPLICANT
KEES HULSMAN
SIXTH APPLICANT
LYN HOLMAN
SEVENTH APPLICANT
COLIN McANDREW
EIGHTH APPLICANT
JOHN SCOTT
NINTH APPLICANT
GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY
TENTH APPLICANT
AND: WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER: 3 MARCH 2003
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for a stay of the sequestration order is refused. 2. There be no orders as to costs of the motion for a stay. 3. Any appeal from the making of the sequestration order made on 20 February be lodged by 4 pm on Monday, 24 March. 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 7022 OF 2002
BETWEEN: AYNSLEY KELLOW
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