BOWESCO PTY LTD -v- CRONIN [2008] WASC 296
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2008] WASC 296 | |
| Case No: | COR:134/2008 | 8 DECEMBER 2008 | |
| Coram: | MASTER SANDERSON | 17/12/08 | |
| 10 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Order for removal of receivers refused | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BOWESCO PTY LTD (RECEIVERS & MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 008 915 357) KAREN SANDRA CAREY JOHN PATRICK CRONIN SHAUN ROBERT FRASER LANEPOINT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (RECEIVERS & MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 110 693 251) |
Catchwords: | Corporations law Receivers Application to remove receivers on basis receivership concluded Whether removal forcible under corporations law Whether receivership actually completed |
Legislation: | Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 423(1)(b), s 434A, s 434B, s 1321 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), s 254 |
Case References: | Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1493 Expo International Pty Ltd v Chant [1979] 2 NSWLR 820 Ramage v Waclaw (1988) 12 NSWLR 84 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- First Plaintiff
KAREN SANDRA CAREY
Second Plaintiff
AND
JOHN PATRICK CRONIN
First Defendant
SHAUN ROBERT FRASER
Second Defendant
- First Plaintiff
KAREN SANDRA CAREY
Second Plaintiff
AND
- JOHN PATRICK CRONIN
First Defendant
SHAUN ROBERT FRASER
Second Defendant
Catchwords:
Corporations law - Receivers - Application to remove receivers on basis receivership concluded - Whether removal forcible under corporations law - Whether receivership actually completed
Legislation:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 423(1)(b), s 434A, s 434B, s 1321
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), s 254
Result:
Order for removal of receivers refused
Category: A
Representation:
COR 134 of 2008
Counsel:
First Plaintiff : Mr M M Mony de Kerloy
Second Plaintiff : Mr M M Mony de Kerloy
First Defendant : Mr B O'Donnell QC & Mr J A Thomson
Second Defendant : Mr B O'Donnell QC & Mr J A Thomson
Solicitors:
First Plaintiff : Mony de Kerloy
Second Plaintiff : Mony de Kerloy
First Defendant : Allens Arthur Robinson
Second Defendant : Allens Arthur Robinson
COR 133 of 2008
Counsel:
First Plaintiff : Mr M M Mony de Kerloy
Second Plaintiff : Mr M M Mony de Kerloy
First Defendant : Mr B O'Donnell QC & Mr J A Thomson
Second Defendant : Mr B O'Donnell QC & Mr J A Thomson
Solicitors:
First Plaintiff : Mony de Kerloy
Second Plaintiff : Mony de Kerloy
First Defendant : Allens Arthur Robinson
Second Defendant : Allens Arthur Robinson
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1493
Expo International Pty Ltd v Chant [1979] 2…
Continue reading Bowesco Pty Ltd v Cronin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Bowesco Pty Ltd v Cronin [2008] WASC 296
- Case
- [2008] WASC 296
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The application in Bowesco Pty Ltd v Cronin sought the removal of receivers who had been appointed over the respondent’s property. The applicant argued that the receivership was concluded and that the receivers had overstepped their authority by taking actions outside the scope of the appointment. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the removal of the receivers was lawful under the Corporations Act and whether the receivership had actually been completed.
The central legal issues revolved around whether the removal of the receivers was considered forcible under the relevant sections of the Corporations Act and whether the receivership had indeed concluded. The applicant contended that the receivers had exceeded their powers and that their removal was justified, whereas the respondent argued that the receivers had acted within their authority and that the removal was unlawful. The court had to consider the scope of the receiver’s powers and whether the actions taken by the receivers were consistent with the terms of the appointment.
The court found that the receivers had not exceeded their authority and that the actions taken were within the scope of the receivership. It was held that the removal of the receivers would be forcible, as it would not be in accordance with the provisions of the Corporations Act. Furthermore, the court determined that the receivership had not been completed, as there were ongoing matters that required the receivers' involvement. Consequently, the application for removal was dismissed, and the order for removal of the receivers was refused.
The central legal issues revolved around whether the removal of the receivers was considered forcible under the relevant sections of the Corporations Act and whether the receivership had indeed concluded. The applicant contended that the receivers had exceeded their powers and that their removal was justified, whereas the respondent argued that the receivers had acted within their authority and that the removal was unlawful. The court had to consider the scope of the receiver’s powers and whether the actions taken by the receivers were consistent with the terms of the appointment.
The court found that the receivers had not exceeded their authority and that the actions taken were within the scope of the receivership. It was held that the removal of the receivers would be forcible, as it would not be in accordance with the provisions of the Corporations Act. Furthermore, the court determined that the receivership had not been completed, as there were ongoing matters that required the receivers' involvement. Consequently, the application for removal was dismissed, and the order for removal of the receivers was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order for removal of receivers refused
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.