BROOKSIDE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD -v- RICHARDSON & ANOR [2002] WASC 9

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 9
Case No:	COR:419/2001	Heard:	4 JANUARY 2002
Coram:	PULLIN J	Delivered:	4/01/02
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for stay dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BROOKSIDE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (ACN 092 706 057) MICHAEL BRYAN RICHARDSON DIANE ELIZABETH RICHARDSON
Catchwords:	Procedure Application for a stay of Master's order Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Corporations Act 2001, s 459G Corporations Law, s 459H1(a), s459H1(b) Property Law Act, s 9 Supreme Court Rules, O 47 r 13, O 63 r 15
Case References:	Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685 Croney v Nand (1999) 2 Qd R 342 Edge Technology Pty Ltd v Lite-On Technology Corporation (2000) 18 ACLC 576 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Myer Emporium Ltd [No 1] (1986) 160 CLR 220 Hoyt's Proprietary Ltd v Spencer (1919) 27 CLR 133 Hume v Maher, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 980643; 29 October 1998 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : BROOKSIDE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD -v- RICHARDSON & ANOR [2002] WASC 9 CORAM : PULLIN J HEARD : 4 JANUARY 2002 DELIVERED : 4 JANUARY 2002 FILE NO/S : COR 419 of 2001 MATTER : Section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth)

and

BROOKSIDE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD

(ACN 092 706 057)

BETWEEN : BROOKSIDE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (ACN 092 706 057)

Applicant

AND

MICHAEL BRYAN RICHARDSON

DIANE ELIZABETH RICHARDSON

Respondents

Catchwords:

Procedure - Application for a stay of Master's order - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001, s 459G

Corporations Law, s 459H1(a), s459H1(b)
Property Law Act, s 9
Supreme Court Rules, O 47 r 13, O 63 r 15

Result:

Application for stay dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr D P Nolan

Respondents : Mr A J Aristei

Solicitors:

Applicant : Wojtowicz Kelly

Respondents : Ian K Campbell

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

Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Croney v Nand (1999) 2 Qd R 342
Edge Technology Pty Ltd v Lite-On Technology Corporation (2000) 18 ACLC 576
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Myer Emporium Ltd [No 1] (1986) 160 CLR 220
Hoyt's Proprietary Ltd v Spencer (1919) 27 CLR 133
Hume v Maher, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 980643; 29 October 1998

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 PULLIN J: This is an application to stay the effect of the decision of Master Sanderson, who declined to set aside a statutory demand served on the applicant in these proceedings. The application to the Master was made under s 459G of the Corporations Act 2001.

2 The applicant contended that a genuine dispute or offsetting claim existed which afforded grounds for the Master setting aside the statutory demand. If an offsetting claim existed or there was a genuine dispute,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Brookside Management Pty Ltd v Richardson

Details

AGLC: Brookside Management Pty Ltd v Richardson [2002] WASC 9
Case: [2002] WASC 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brookside Management Pty Ltd applied to the Supreme Court of Western Australia to stay a Master's order which declined to set aside a statutory demand made against them by the respondents. The applicants sought to appeal against the Master's order, contending that the Master had failed to take into account, or give sufficient weight to, the evidence which raised a dispute and/or offsetting claim of the types contemplated in s 459H1(a) and/or (b) of the Corporations Law. The applicants also submitted that the Master erred in his interpretation of the written agreement dated 1 May 2001 entered into between the applicant and the respondents, when such interpretation was not consistent with the evidence raised by the applicant in regard to the terms of the agreement. The court noted that the test for a stay was whether the applicant for the stay demonstrated a reason or an appropriate case to warrant the exercise of discretion in the applicant's favour. The court dismissed the application for a stay, holding that there was no arguable case which could be advanced by the applicant based on the affidavits which had been filed in these proceedings.

Orders