Bitar Pty Ltd v Hebbel Constructions Pty Ltd

Case [2019] NSWCA 38


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bitar Pty Ltd v Hebbel Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 38
Hearing dates: 20 February 2019
Date of orders: 20 February 2019
Decision date: 05 March 2019
Before: Gleeson JA at [1]
McCallum JA at [47]
Decision:

(1)   Extend the time for the service of the summons seeking leave to appeal to 27 August 2018.

 

(2)   Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

 (3)   Applicant to pay the Receiver’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal on an indemnity basis.
Catchwords:

APPEAL – Leave to appeal from interlocutory decision not to discharge court appointed receiver – Where complaints of delay by the receiver – Whether error of principle in approach to removal of receiver – Whether manifest injustice in refusing to remove the receiver – Where futility of an appeal given receivership almost complete – Where other remedies available

  CORPORATIONS – Receivers and managers – Appointment by court – Application for removal of receiver – Conduct of receivership – Powers – Where receiver makes commercial judgments as to timing and staging of sale of assets
Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(e)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 26.6, 51.4, 51.10
Cases Cited: ACN 151 726 224 Pty Ltd (in liq) formerly Ridley Capital Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1801
Domino Hire Pty Ltd v Pioneer Park Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 496
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
MLW Investments Pty Ltd v Tacsum Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1256
Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Smith (2017) 95 NSWLR 597; [2017] NSWCA 206
Tomko v Palasty (No 2) (2007) 71 NSWLR 61 at [55]; [2007] NSWCA 369
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Bitar Pty Limited (Applicant)
Hebbel Constructions Pty Limited (First Respondent)
Daniel Frisken (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
P. E. King (Applicant)
P. Wiggins (Solicitor) (First Respondent)
S. Golledge (Second Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Priest Legal (Applicant)
Paramonte Legal (First Respondent)
Yates Beaggi Lawyers (Second Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/192212
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Equity Division
Citation:
[2018] NSWSC 758
Date of Decision:
25 May 2018
Before:
Black J
File Number(s):
2014/269117

Judgment

  1. GLEESON JA: The applicant, Bitar Pty Limited (Bitar), seeks leave to appeal against a decision of a judge of the Equity Division made on 25 May 2018 and orders made on 8 June 2018 dismissing an application by Bitar to discharge a receiver appointed by the Court over the assets of a partnership which had been dissolved: Hebbel Constructions Pty Limited v Bitar Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 758 (the Principal Judgment). Bitar also seeks leave to appeal against orders made on 19 June 2018 dismissing Bitar’s application to invoke the liberty to apply granted on 8 June 2018: Hebbel Constructions Pty Limited v Bitar Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 1089 (the Ancillary Judgment).

  2. As the orders sought to be challenged…

Continue reading Bitar Pty Ltd v Hebbel Constructions Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bitar Pty Ltd v Hebbel Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 38
Case
[2019] NSWCA 38
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bitar Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision of the primary judge who had refused to discharge a court-appointed receiver, Hebbel Constructions Pty Ltd. The applicant's complaints related to alleged delays by the receiver in conducting the receivership.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in principle in their approach to the removal of a court-appointed receiver, and whether there was manifest injustice in refusing to remove the receiver. The Court also considered the futility of an appeal given the receivership was nearing completion and whether alternative remedies were available to the applicant.

Gleeson and McCallum JJA found that the primary judge had not erred in principle. Their Honours noted that the receiver had made commercial judgments regarding the timing and staging of the sale of assets, which was within its powers. The Court considered that the receivership was substantially complete, rendering an appeal largely futile, and that other avenues for addressing the applicant's grievances were available.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal extended the time for service of the summons seeking leave to appeal, but ultimately dismissed the summons seeking leave to appeal with costs. The applicant was also ordered to pay the Receiver's costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal on an indemnity basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Extend the time for the service of the summons seeking leave to appeal to 27 August 2018.

(2) Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

(3) Applicant to pay the Receiver’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal on an indemnity basis.

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.