The Court removed a stay of a $1.09 million battery judgment where the circumstances underpinning the original stay had fundamentally changed: the defendant had failed to disclose a pre-existing loan agreement with her husband that further encumbered the secured property, continued to draw down on that loan in breach of the stay orders, and subsequently applied for bankruptcy rather than pursuing the financial advice the stay was designed to facilitate. The Court declined to make freezing orders against the defendant's husband, finding no utility given the removal of the stay and the appointment of trustees in bankruptcy. The judgment also noted the automatic consequences of bankruptcy under ss 58 and 60 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), including that the defendant's appeal is stayed pending the trustees' election to prosecute or discontinue.
The full text is available to signed-in members.