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
ACTING MASTER WHITBY:
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.
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.
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] WASC 353
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.