IN THE MATTER OF YABE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LIMITED (In Liquidation) and AUSTRALCO
INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED v. DANIEL ISAAC WEINSTOCK, GREGORY VAUGHAN POOLEY and
WILLIAM ERIC COPP
No. NG3288 of 1993
FED No. 966/94
Number of pages - 11
Corporations
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
DAVIES J
CATCHWORDS
Corporations - liquidation - debt owed by liquidated company with no assets - whether directors liable for payment of debt - whether there were reasonable grounds to expect that the company would be able to pay its debts - no point of principle.
Corporations Law, s.592(1)
HEARING
SYDNEY, 23 November 1994
#DATE 13:12:1994
#ADD 15:5:1995
Counsel for the Applicant: D.J. Hammerschlag
Solicitors for the Applicant: Rosenblum and Partners
Counsel for the Respondents: D.L. Ronzani
Solicitors for the Respondents: Abbott Tout
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. There be judgment for the applicant against the respondents in the sum of $68,509.50.
2. The respondents pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1
DAVIES J In this application, Australco Industries Pty Limited ("Australco"), which has judgment against Yabe Constructions Pty Limited (In Liquidation) ("Yabe") for $54,083.46 in respect of building works carried out and materials supplied by Australco to Yabe between October 1990 and February 1991, seeks an order under s 592 of the Corporations Law that the respondents, Daniel Isaac Weinstock, Gregory Vaughan Pooley and William Eric Copp, who were directors of Yabe, pay the debt.
Section 592(1) of the Corporations Law provides:-
"Where:
(a) a company has incurred a debt before the commencement of Part 5. 7B;
(b) immediately before the time when the debt was incurred:
(i) there were reasonable grounds to expect that the company will not be able to pay all its debts as and when they become due; or
(ii) there were reasonable grounds to expect that, if the company incurs the debt, it will not be able to pay all its debts as and when they become due; and
(c) the company was, at the time when the debt was incurred, or becomes at a later time, a company to which this section applies;
any person who was a director of the company, or took part in the management of the company, at the time when the debt was incurred contravenes this subsection and the company and that person or, if there are 2 or more such persons, those persons are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the debt."
I need not set out the defence provided by s 592(2), as that defence was not relied upon.
Australco is a company which specialises inter alia in the manufacture of aluminium framework, windows and fittings. The debt arose out of an agreement entered into between Australco and Yabe on 28 September 1990 whereby Australco agreed to supply and to install aluminium framing and to provide the glazing to an industrial factory…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Australco Industries P/L v Weinstock, D.I and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1994] FCA 966
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that there were no reasonable grounds to expect that the company would be able to pay its debts. The directors were found liable for the payment of the debt owed by the company. The court found that the directors had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the company could pay its debts and had continued to trade while insolvent, which is an offence under section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court held that the directors' liability was not affected by the fact that the company had no assets and was unable to pay its debts.
The court ordered that there be judgment for the applicant against the respondents in the sum of $68,509.50, together with interest and costs. The court also ordered that the respondents pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings. The court's decision highlights the importance of directors taking reasonable steps to ensure that their company can pay its debts and not continuing to trade while insolvent. The decision also reinforces the principle that directors can be held liable for the payment of their company's debts in certain circumstances.
Orders
Orders of the court
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. There be judgment for the applicant against the respondents in the sum of $68,509.50.
2. The respondents pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.