//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1999] FCA 1501
Federal Court of Australia
1999-10-25
Mr Andrew P, Dowsett J
Original judgment source is linked above.
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
AND: LUDMILLA ISSITCH aka LUDMILLA TANTNER-ISSITCH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
AND: LUDMILLA ISSITCH aka LUDMILLA TANTNER-ISSITCH
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. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.
Associate: Dated: 29 October 1999 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Martin
Worrell, in the matter of Tantner (Bankrupt)
Issitch