Australian Securities Commission v Rohani, Rohyeh

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Corporations Law – s 1323

CAC v Lombard Nash International Pty Limited (1987) 5 ACLC 1020 - dist.

Re Netsor Pty Limited (1981) 6 ACLR 114 - appl.

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION V ROHYEH ROHANI, HAMISH BAKER REAL ESTATE PTY LIMITED AND GLOBAL FINANCE CORPORATION PTY LIMITED

NG 3098 OF 1998

JUDGE:         BEAUMONT J.
PLACE:         SYDNEY
DATE:           4 SEPTEMBER 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 3098 of 1998

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION
APPLICANT

AND:

ROHYEH ROHANI
FIRST RESPONDENT

HAMISH BAKER REAL ESTATE PTY LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

GLOBAL FINANCE CORPORATION PTY LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

BEAUMONT J.

DATE OF ORDER:

4 SEPTEMBER 1998

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

ORDERS:

1. The third respondent be wound up.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 3098 of 1998

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION
APPLICANT

AND:

ROHYEH ROHANI
FIRST RESPONDENT

HAMISH BAKER REAL ESTATE PTY LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

GLOBAL FINANCE CORPORATION PTY LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J.
DATE:	4 SEPTEMBER 1998
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BEAUMONT J.

I have already given a judgment in this matter on a preliminary point as to standing and in that judgment I mentioned some of the background to the litigation.

The parameters of the dispute between the parties are fairly indicated by their points of claim and points of defence respectively and they may be summarised as follows:

By its points of claim the Commission seeks to make the following case as against the first respondent:

1. The first respondent was a director of Empire Systems Pty Limited (“Empire Systems”) and of the third respondent.  It may be noted here, although not pleaded, that Empire Systems is now in the course of liquidation.

1. On 30 June 1997 a cheque in the sum of $594,423 was drawn by Empire Systems from its bank account payable to cash.

1. The cheque stub to this cheque contained the handwritten word “Digitnet”.

1. Digitnet Pty Limited (“Digitnet”) was a major supplier of computer components to Empire Systems.

1. On 30 June 1997 another cheque in the sum of $396,500 was drawn by Empire Systems from its bank account payable to cash.

1. The cheque stub to this cheque contained the handwritten word “Beyond”.

1. Beyond Peripherals Pty Limited (“Beyond Peripherals”) was a major supplier of computer components to Empire Systems.

1. On 30 June 1997 each of the above cheques was deposited into Empire Systems’ bank account.

1. On 30 June 1997 the sum of $990,923 was credited to the first respondent's loan account with Empire Systems.

As against the third respondent the Commission seeks to make the following case:

1. Between 4 July 1997 and 18 March 1998, sixty three cheques were drawn by Empire Systems from its bank accounts for the benefit of the third respondent.

1. These cheques totalled the sum of $520,756.81.

1. On various dates between 4 July 1997 and 19 March 1998 the third respondent deposited into its…