Barboutis v The Kart Centre Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 43 min read

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION:   BARBOUTIS -v- THE KART CENTRE PTY LTD [2019] WASC 353

CORAM:   ACTING MASTER WHITBY

HEARD:   23 MAY & 16 AUGUST 2019

DELIVERED          :   2 OCTOBER 2019

PUBLISHED           :   2 OCTOBER 2019

FILE NO/S:   COR 73 of 2019

BETWEEN:   COLIN JOHN BARBOUTIS

First Plaintiff

BULLSBROOK CAPITAL PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE OF THE ATHENA TRUST

Second Plaintiff

AND

THE KART CENTRE PTY LTD

Defendant


Catchwords:

Corporations law - Application for company to be wound up in insolvency under s 459P of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - Whether director of a company has been validly appointed - Whether applicant has standing to apply for winding up order - Plaintiff attempting to prove the defendant is insolvent - Test of solvency

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459P, s 461(1)(k), s 1274B

Result:

Application dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : Mr C K Pearce
Second Plaintiff : Mr C K Pearce
Defendant : Ms P A Martino

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : Blackwall Legal Group
Second Plaintiff : Blackwall Legal Group
Defendant : P A Martino

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Asia Pacific Joint Mining Pty Ltd v Allways Resources Holdings Pty Ltd [2018] QCA 48

Australian Securities and Investment Commission v ActiveSuper Pty Ltd (No 2) (2013) 93 ACSR 189

China v James Smith (Also Known As James With) [No 4] [2014] WASC 140

Crema Pty Ltd v Land Mark Property Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 58 ACSR 631

Higgins v Drilling Australia Pty Ltd [2018] WASC 254

Inspector James v Ryan (No 3) [2010] NSW IRComm 127

Leslie v Howship Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 15 ACLC 459

Lewis v Doran (2004) 208 ALR 385

Sandell v Porter (1996) 115 CLR 666

ACTING MASTER WHITBY:

  1. This is the plaintiffs' application by originating process dated 5 April 2019 for orders pursuant to s 459P and s 461(1)(k) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) for the defendant to be wound up on grounds of insolvency or, alternatively, on just and equitable grounds.

  2. In support of the application, the plaintiffs rely upon:

    (a)affidavit of Colin John Barboutis sworn on 5 April 2019 (First Barboutis Affidavit);

    (b)affidavit of Colin John Barboutis sworn on 29 April 2019 (Second Barboutis Affidavit);

    (c)affidavit of Andrew Hamish Neil Taylor affirmed 21 August 2019 (Taylor Affidavit); and

    (d)affidavit of Colin John Barboutis sworn 23 August 2019 (Third Barboutis Affidavit).[1]

    [1] The plaintiffs also sought to rely upon the affidavit of Christopher Kingsley Pearce sworn 20 June 2019 and Monica Hamid sworn on 15 August 2019.  I deal with the admissibility of those affidavits later in this judgment.

  3. The application is opposed by Andrew Noel Freeman, a director of The Kart Centre Pty Ltd, and The Kart Centre Pty Ltd, the defendant in the proceeding. It is accepted by the plaintiffs that, for the purposes of this application, Mr Freeman and the defendant be permitted to oppose the application.[2]

    [2] The plaintiffs have not raised an issue as to whether Mr…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Barboutis v The Kart Centre Pty Ltd 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] WASC 353
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Barboutis filed an application seeking the winding up of The Kart Centre Pty Ltd under s 459P of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), claiming the company was insolvent. The Kart Centre Pty Ltd, through its directors, opposed the application, arguing the applicant lacked standing and that the company was not insolvent. The legal issues before the court were whether Barboutis had the requisite standing to apply for the winding up order and whether The Kart Centre Pty Ltd was insolvent.

The court found that Barboutis, who was a creditor of the company, had the necessary standing to apply for a winding up order. However, the court also determined that Barboutis had not satisfied the threshold requirements for insolvency. In assessing solvency, the court applied the test of whether the company could pay its debts as they fell due. The evidence presented did not establish that The Kart Centre Pty Ltd was unable to meet its financial obligations when they became due.

Consequently, the court dismissed Barboutis' application for a winding up order. The determination was made on the basis that while Barboutis had standing to apply, the insolvency test was not met. The Kart Centre Pty Ltd was therefore not wound up, and the application was dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.