ACN 078 272 867 Pty Ltd (in liq) (formerly Advance Finances Pty Ltd) v Binetter, in the matter of ACN 078 272 867 Pty Ltd (in liq) (formerly Advance Finances Pty Ltd)

The case involves ACN 078 272 867 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (formerly Advance Finances Pty Ltd) as the plaintiff and Binetter as the defendant. The dispute revolves around an application seeking to discharge orders that granted leave to serve originating process on defendants located in Israel. The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs had satisfied the requirements for leave to serve the originating process on individuals in a foreign country and whether there was a prima facie case for relief against the defendants in Israel. The court was also required to consider claims for relief made under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). The court found that a prima facie case had been demonstrated, at least with respect to the claim for relief pursuant to the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). However, the court determined that there were insufficient prospects of success to warrant putting the overseas defendants to the time, expense, and trouble of defending the claims. Consequently, the application for orders discharging service ex juris was dismissed.

The reasoning of the court was based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles. The court noted that the plaintiffs' case was insufficient as there was no evidence to establish that the banks had notice of the intent to defraud creditors, which is a critical element in attributing liability under the Conveyancing Act. The court also highlighted that the Conveyancing Act claim did not suffer from a want of sufficient prospects of success, and therefore, the overseas defendants should not be subjected to the burden of defending the claim. The court dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the Banks with costs.

The final orders of the court were as follows: (1) the interlocutory application of the fourth and fifth defendants dated 16 October 2017 was dismissed; (2) the fourth and fifth defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application; (3) the parties were required to provide joint or, failing agreement, competing short minutes of order containing their proposal for the progress of the substantive matter by 12 pm on 28 June 2018; and (4) the matter was listed for a case management hearing at 9.30 am on 29 June 2018.