FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Worrell, in the matter of Tantner (Bankrupt) v Issitch [1999] FCA 1501

SIGFRIED TANTNER, EX PARTE:  IVOR WORRELL v LUDMILLA ISSITCH aka LUDMILLA TANTNER-ISSITCH and HILARIO RICABLANCA and GREGORIA RICABLANCA

QG 7007 of 1996

DOWSETT J

25 OCTOBER 1999

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.         The application for a stay be refused.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     I am not presently willing to grant a stay or allow the respondent to raise money on the security of her house.  No reasonable explanation is given as to the security which might be offered to the applicant to secure the benefits of the judgment pending the appeal, and no indication is given as to how much money might be required in order to prosecute the appeal, although some reference to item costs appears in par 10 of Mr Abaza's affidavit.

2                     Secondly, the grounds of appeal appear to me to be an invitation to the Full Court to embark upon its own investigation of the facts rather than a notice of appeal.  I am not for a moment suggesting that there may not be grounds of appeal which can legitimately be ventilated, but they do not, as far as I can see, presently appear in a comprehensible form in

the draft notices of appeal.  In those circumstances I refuse the application for a stay.

Associate:

Dated:              29 October 1999