Legal Research
Cases
Alati v Wei Sheung

Alati v Wei Sheung

Case [2000] NSWSC 601 8 June 2000

Winding Up & Liquidation

Injunction

Corporate Law & Governance

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: [2000] ACSR 489

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Alati v Wei Sheung & Ors; Alati v Shang Corporation Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 601

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2474/2000; 2645/2000

HEARING DATE(S): 07/06/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 8 June 2000

PARTIES :

Mark Joseph Alati (P)
Wei Sheung (also known as Wai Sheung and David Wai Sheung)(D1)
Shang Corporation Pty Limited (D2)
S & S Grand Constructions Pty Limited (D3)
Hit Neo-&-Hi-Tech Park Group Investments Pty Limited (D4)

JUDGMENT OF: Young J

COUNSEL : C R C Newlinds (P)
D J Hammerschlag and V F Kerr (D1 & 2)
R Parsons (D3)
T G R Parker (D4)

SOLICITORS: Michell Sillar (P)
Mok & Associates (D1 & 2)
Peter Bouzanis & Associates (D3)
Allen Allen & Hemsley (D4)

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS [202]- Winding up- Application by creditor- Contingent creditor- Includes a person who is owed some money even though quantum unliquidated - CORPORATI0NS [230]- Winding up application- Power of Court- Court may make Mareva type order.

LEGISLATION CITED: Conveyancing Act 1919, s 37A
Corporations Law ss 459P(2), 462(2), 465A, 465B, 467(1)(c), 513A, 565, 588FC, 1324

CASES CITED: Abignano v Wenkart (1998) 9 BPR 16,765
Air Express Ltd v Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd (1981) 146 CLR 249
Anderson v Newton [1934] 3 DLR 224
Cadorange Pty Ltd v Tanga Holdings Pty Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 26
Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 162 ALR 294
Re Community Development Pty Ltd [1969] QR 1
Community Development Pty Ltd v Engwirda Construction Co (1966) 120 CLR 455
Darvall v North Sydney Brick & Tile Co Ltd (1989) 15 ACLR 230
Emanuele v Australian Securities Commission (1997) 188 CLR 114
Re Federal Bank of Australia (Limited) (1893) 62 LJ Ch 561
Glegg v Bromley [1912] 3 KB 474
Honner v Ashton (1981) 1 BPR 9478
LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes Pty Ltd (1997) 38 IPR 107
Mandarin International Developments Pty Ltd v Growth Corp (Aust) Pty Ltd (1998) 143 FLR 408
Ronnoc Finance v Spectrum Systems Pty Ltd (1997) 45 NSWLR 624
Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1980) 2 BPR 9662
Re Wilson Market Research Pty Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 311

DECISION: Orders made

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

YOUNG J

THURSDAY 8 JUNE 2000
2474/2000 - MARK JOSEPH ALATI v WEI SHEUNG & ORS
2645/2000 - MARK JOSEPH ALATI v SHANG CORPORATION PTY LTD

JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: I am hearing together two sets of proceedings commenced by Mark Joseph Alati. The first is matter 2474 of 2000. I will refer to the parties by the position they have taken in those proceedings. Mr Alati is the plaintiff. Mr Wei Sheung is the first defendant. Shang Corporation Pty Limited is the second defendant. S & S Grand Constructions Pty Limited is the third defendant. Hit Neo-&-Hi-Tech Park Group Investments Pty Limited is the fourth defendant.
2 Proceedings 2474 of 2000 are essentially proceedings to set aside certain mortgages as being in fraud…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Alati v Wei Sheung

Details

AGLC: Alati v Wei Sheung [2000] NSWSC 601
Case: [2000] NSWSC 601
Decision Date: 8 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Alati v Wei Sheung, the application was brought by the liquidators of a company in liquidation against a former director. The central dispute involved the liquidators' attempt to secure assets of the company to satisfy contingent debts owed by the company to creditors, including the applicants. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the court had the authority to grant a Mareva injunction against the assets of the former director to prevent dissipation of assets that could potentially be used to satisfy contingent debts owed by the company. This required an examination of statutory provisions concerning the court's power to make Mareva-type orders in winding-up proceedings.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and determined that the court does indeed have the power to make Mareva-type orders in winding-up proceedings. The court held that a contingent creditor, which includes a person owed money even though the exact amount is unliquidated, could be protected under the corporation's act. The court relied on the broad language of the statute, which encompasses all creditors, contingent or otherwise, in its interpretation. The court found that the purpose of winding-up proceedings is to ensure that all creditors are treated fairly and that assets are preserved for the benefit of all creditors. Therefore, the court concluded it had the authority to make the requested Mareva-type order to secure the assets of the former director.

Consequently, the court granted the application and made an order that restrained the former director from disposing of certain assets. The order was intended to protect the contingent creditors and ensure that the assets could be used to satisfy the debts owed to them once the quantum of the debts was determined. The court's decision underscored the importance of protecting all creditors in winding-up proceedings, including those with contingent claims.

Orders