This matter involved an appeal from the determination of a separate question as to whether notice given by a trustee in bankruptcy purportedly pursuant to s 129AA(4) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) was valid. A question also arose as to whether the bankrupt is discharged from bankruptcy pursuant to s 149 of the Bankruptcy Act on the three year anniversary of filing his or her statement of affairs or on the first instant of the following day.
This made involved the determination of a separate question whether notice given by a trustee in bankruptcy purportedly pursuant to s 129AA(4) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act) was valid. It was held that the determination of that question turned on whether the period of 3 years after the date on which the bankrupt files his or her statement of affairs provided for in s 149(4) of the Bankruptcy Act is to be calculated by including the day on which the bankrupt files his or her statement of affairs. The court found that the calculation of the period of 3 years does not include the day on which the bankrupt files his or her statement of affairs and, accordingly, that the notice issued by trustee was valid. The matters also involves claims under section 121of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, section 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 and includes allegations that a particular agreement is a “sham agreement”.
This matter involved an application for a sequestration order under the Bankruptcy Act. Questions of capacity were also raised.
This matter involved a bankrupt' application for leave to file a further statement of claim in Court proceedings after the initial statement of claim had been struck out. A question arose as to whether section 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act applied
This matter concerned the admissibility of transcript taken under an inquiry into the bankrupt’s affairs pursuant to section 81 of the Bankruptcy Act. The transcript of that inquiry was sought to be tendered. Questions as to the application of section 135 of the Evidence Act were also raised – in particular, that sections relationship with s 81 of the Bankruptcy Act. A further question arose as to whether section 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act applied.
This matter involved a strikeout application of the proceedings or part of the proceedings in circumstances where two of the respondent corporations had been dissolved upon their cancellation of registration.
This matter concerned whether there had been a conversion of bank cheques and whether monies were the property of a bankrupt at the time of sequestration. Another issue was whether a party had a defence.
The Database Dept Pty Ltd ats Shaolin Pty Ltd atf Burns Family Trust (2018, Supreme Court of New South Wales, No.2018/105782). This matter involved an application for the appointment of external administrators to a company.
RJ Dean-Willcocks as liquidator of Re Navra Group Pty Ltd (in liq), (2015, Federal Court of Australia, NSD 1061) and Christopher John Palmer as liquidator of Re Navra Group Pty Ltd (in liq), (2015, Federal Court of Australia, NSD 1061). This matter, which is summarised in the Practice Area, Banking and Finance contained on this website, included an application for a change of liquidator.
Commonwealth of Australia & ors v Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (in liq), (Federal Court of Australia, QUD 283/2016). This matter involved an application for the appointment of a special purpose liquidator and the proper construction of the terms of that appointment.
In the matter of Crest Corporation Pty Limited: Sigglekow v Crest Corporation Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of NSW, No. 1297 of 2002). This matter involved an application for the appointment of a provisional liquidator and to wind up a company. The matter also included an application for an order under sections 233 and 247A of the Corporations Act.
Initiative Media Pty Limited v Popwing Pty Ltd (in Liq) (Administrators Appointed) and ors. (Supreme Court of NSW, No. 4605 of 2002). This matter concerned an application in relation to section 436B of the Corporations Act.
Kazzam Pty Ltd & Ors. v Kick Juice Bars Pty Ltd (In Liq)(Supreme Court of NSW, No 5831/07). This matter involved an application pursuant to section 471B of the Corporations Act.
Tech Pacific Australia Pty Limited v Brown (Supreme Court of NSW, No. 4792 of 2002). This matter included an application for leave to commence proceedings under section 440D of the Corporations Act.
In the matter of K-C Trade Pty Ltd (in liq): Trevor Pogroske in his capacity as liquidator of K-C Trade Pty Ltd (in liq) and K-C Trade Pty Ltd (in liq) v Grant Clarke and ors. (NSW Supreme Court No 333191 of 2020). In these proceedings, allegations of insolvent trading and claims under s 588M of the Corporations Act were made. This matter is further referred to on this website under the Practice Area, Corporations and Associations Law – Public Examinations. The proceedings settled shortly before the allocated hearing date in 2022.
In the matter of Hanama Collection Pty Ltd: Hanama Collection Pty Ltd v AIG Australia Ltd (Supreme Court of NSW, No. 2021/00078391). In this matter allegations of insolvent trading have been made by liquidators against former directors. The matter, which was to be heard concurrently with AIG Australia Ltd & Anor ats MHN Trading Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor (Supreme Court of NSW No. 2021/00078382), settled shortly before the allocated hearing date.
AIG Australia Ltd & Anor ats MHN Trading Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor (Supreme Court of NSW No. 2021/00078382). In this matter allegations of insolvent trading were made by a company's liquidators against former directors. The matter, which was being heard concurrently with In the matter of Hanama Collection Pty Ltd: Hanama Collection Pty Ltd v AIG Australia Ltd (Supreme Court of NSW, No. 2021/00078391), settled shortly before the allocated hearing date.
Glencore International AG v Bank of Western Australia Ltd, Howe & Hogan, (Federal Court No. 2482 of 2005). These proceedings raised allegations of breach of duty by directors of a mining company. A significant issue related to claims for compensation for alleged insolvent trading from the company’s director.
Loo, in the matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Quinlan (Liquidator) [2021] FCAFC 186; Kelly (Liquidator), in the matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Loo [2021] FCA 531 (Markovic J); Choo Boon Loo v Philip Alexander Quinlan and Morgan John Kelly (as liquidators) and others [2021] NZCA 561; and, In the matter of Halifax New Zealand Limited (in liquidation), Morgan Kelly and Philip Quinlan [2021] NZHC 1113; Kelly, in the matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 7) [2020] FCA 248; Kelly, in the matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 8) [2020] FCA 533; Kelly, in the matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 10) [2020] FCA 1146; Kelly, in the matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 11) [2020] FCA 1282. This litigation known as the Halifax litigation is discussed in detail on this web-site under the menu bar "Resources". It also features under recent developments. The Halifax litigation involved applications by liquidators and/or trustees pursuant to 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) being Schedule 2 to the Corporations Act (Cth) and/or section 63 and 81 of the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW). The applications were made in circumstances where company funds and trust funds were co-mingled. The following questions were among those to be determined by the Federal Court and the High Court of New Zealand who heard the matters simultaneously:
a) whether liquidators were justified in using trust and co-mingled funds to pay their remuneration for the administration and liquidation;
b) whether judicial advice was appropriate with respect to closing out of extant investments of investors in the insolvent entities;
c) whether liquidators were justified in refraining from realising investments until the determination of all substantive issues in the proceedings;
d) whether representatives of investors should be appointed.
RJ Dean-Willcocks as liquidator of Re Navra Group Pty Ltd (in liq), (Federal Court of Australia, NSD 1061 of 2015) and Christopher John Palmer as liquidator of Re Navra Group Pty Ltd (in liq) (Federal Court of Australia, NSD 1061 of 2015). The application before the Federal Court (NSD 1061 of 2015) involved an application for Judicial Advice pursuant to s 479(3) of the Corporations Act and/or cl 90-15 – 90-20 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule on behalf of a company liquidator. The application involved obtaining approval for an assessment and payout scheme for over 100 claimants using insurance proceeds pursuant to a number of professional indemnity insurance policies in the context where those claimants have alleged that they were negligently advised to make certain investments which led to them sustaining large financial losses. This was a commercially significant matter which impacted (and had the effect of settling) several Court proceedings including Supreme Court proceedings in New South Wales, Supreme Court proceedings in Queensland, group proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and class action proceedings in the Federal Court.
Richard Park, Stefan Dopking, Kelly-Anne Lavina Trenfield & Quentin James Olde in their capacity as Joint and Several Liquidators of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Supreme Court of Queensland, BS 7189/16). This matter concerned an application for judicial advice pursuant to section 479(3) of the Corporations Act. The application concerned the ownership of a Cessna aircraft.
Re Emilco [2002] NSWSC 1124. This matter concerned an application for Judicial Advice pursuant to section 479 of the Corporations Act in relation to an entitlement to interest under s 563B of the Corporations Act.
In the matter of K-C Trade Pty Ltd (in liq), (Supreme Court of NSW No 291850 /2020). This matter involved a number of public examinations pursuant to section 596B of the Corporations Act of various persons associated with the management of K-C Trade Pty Ltd (in liq). Subsequently, in 2020, proceedings were commenced by the liquidators against various directors of the company in In the matter of K-C Trade Pty Ltd (in liq): Trevor Pogroske in his capacity as liquidator of K-C Trade Pty Ltd (in liq) and K-C Trade Pty Ltd (in liq) v Grant Clarke and ors. (Supreme Court of NSW No 333191 of 2020. In those proceedings allegations of insolvent trading and claims under s 588M of the Corporations Act are made. This matter is further referred to on this website under the Practice Area, Corporations and Associations Law – Insolvent Trading.
The Application of the Receivers and Managers of ZYX Learning Centres Limited (formerly ABC Learning Centres Limited) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) (Federal Court, No NSD 1329 of 2010). This matter involved an Examination Summons under the Corporations Act of a company officer.
Palmer ats Hayes & McGrath (Supreme Court of NSW No 3584 of 2009). This matter involved an Examination under the Corporations Act.
In the Matter of Liverpool Hotels Pty Ltd (in Liquidation): Vincent Aboud and Joseph Pizzolato ats Anthony Sims, (Supreme Court of NSW No: 3328 of 2009). This matter involved the examination under s 569B and 596C of the Corporations Act 2001 of a person said to have been managing a company.
Burke v Creative Imaging & Printing Pty Ltd (under administration) (Supreme Court of NSW No. 5515 of 2004). This matter involved a statutory examination under Corporations Act 2001 of directors and officers of a corporation on behalf of an Administrator.
Re Kevin Manson (Supreme Court of NSW, No. 12567 of2004). This matter involved an examination pursuant to s 596 of the Corporations Act.
Kelly, in the matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 7) [2020] FCA 248. This application for remuneration involved companies in Australia and New Zealand and the hearing was a joint sitting of the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of New Zealand.
The Sydney Building Company Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) and Anor v Paul McLean (2020, Federal Court of Australia, No NSD487/2020). This matter involved claims by a liquidator against a director for alleged breaches of sections 180, 181, 182, 588FA,588FB, 588FC, 588FDA, 588FE and 588FF of the Corporations Act 2001.
Quickhall Transport Pty Ltd (in liq) v Jay and Lel Excavators Pty Ltd. This matter involved claims under sections 588FA, 588FC, 588FE, 588FF, 588FG and 588FI of the Corporations Act 2001.
Commissioner of State Revenue v Gleeson, in the matter of Dalma Form Specialist Pty Ltd (subject to deed of company arrangement) [2024] FCA 908. This matter involved successful applications for leave being granted to begin proceeding against an insolvent company pursuant to s 444E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and to terminate a deed of company arrangement pursuant to ss 445D(1)(e), 445D(1)(f) and 447A of the Act.
The Sydney Building Company Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) and Anor v Paul McLean (2020, Federal Court of Australia). This matter involved claims by a liquidator against a director for alleged breaches of sections 180, 181, 182, 588FA, 588FB, 588FC, 588FDA, 588FE and 588FF of the Corporations Act 2001.
Romike Industries Pty Ltd v Dedicated Design(Supreme Court of NSW No. 2108 of 2006). This matter involved an application to wind up a company in circumstances where a statutory demand had not been set aside.
In the matter of RAN Holdings International Pty Ltd (in liq): Laiki Bank (Aust) Ltd v RAN Holdings International Pty Ltd and Anor(Supreme Court of NSW, No. 10577 of 2005). This matter involved an application under section 471B of the Corporations Act 2001 for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation.
In the matter of Hill de Zylva Pty Ltd: Adam Hill v Hill de Zylva Pty Ltd(Supreme Court of NSW, No. 2642 of 2005). This matter involved a winding up application pursuant to section 461(1)(k) of the Corporations Act 2001 and for the appointment of a liquidator.
In the matter of Taste of Tuscany Pty Ltd (in liq): QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd v Taste of Tuscany Pty Ltd (in liq)(Supreme Court of NSW, No2051 of 2003). This interlocutory application was made under section 482 of the Corporations Act. Relevantly, an order was sought that the winding up of the defendant/respondent be terminated and that the liquidator of the defendant/respondent be removed.
In the Matter of Tevone Pty Limited: Faneu Holdings Pty Ltd v Tevone Pty Ltd(Supreme Court of NSW, No. of 2002). This matter involved an application pursuant to sections 459A, 459P and 459Q of the Corporations Act 2001. The application was for the winding up of a company on the ground that the company failed to comply with a statutory demand.
