Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Frigger v Trenfield [2021] FCA 792 File number: WAD 66 of 2021
Judgment of: COLVIN J
Date of judgment: 13 July 2021
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for security for costs - where applicants are bankrupts - whether in interests of justice that there be order for security - consideration of merits of substantive application for orders for annulment and to set aside sequestration orders - application allowed
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 37, 153B Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 477
Cases cited: Bailey v Marinoff (1971) 125 CLR 529 Bulic v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited [2007] FCA 307 Burrell v The Queen [2008] HCA 34; (2008) 238 CLR 218 Francis v Eggleston Mitchell Lawyers Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 18 Frigger v Kitay (No 2) [2020] FCA 497 Frigger v Kitay [2016] WASCA 173 Frigger, in the matter of Computer Accounting & Tax Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2018] FCA 612 G v H (1994) 181 CLR 387 Gamser v Nominal Defendant (1977) 136 CLR 145 Kitay, in the matter of Frigger (No 2) [2018] FCA 1032 Knight v Beyond Properties Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 764 Mecrus Pty Ltd v Industrial Energy Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 103 Morgan v Babcock & Wilcox Ltd (1929) 43 CLR 163 Ozer v Australian Liquor Marketers Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1197 Re Gollan; Ex parte Gollan (1992) 40 FCR 38 Symons v Bateman [1999] FCA 658 The Austral Brick Company Pty Ltd v Daskalovski [1998] FCA 782 Wentworth v Rogers [2006] NSWCA 145; (2006) 66 NSWLR 474
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