Capt'n Snooze Management Pty Ltd v McLellan - [2002] VSC 432

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 5310 of 2002

IN THE MATTER of DREAM HAVEN BEDDING & FURNITURE LTD (In Liquidation)
CAPT'N SNOOZE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD	Plaintiff
v
ANDREW McLELLAN AND IAN CARSON	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Hansen J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 & 23 September, 8 October 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 October 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Capt'n Snooze Management Pty Ltd v McLellan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 432

---

CORPORATIONS – Winding up – Preferential debts – Redundancy payments and wages – Whether funds paid to company for purpose of making redundancy and wage payments – Deposited to company's overdraft account – Rule in Clayton's case – Redundancy and wages paid from overdraft account - Whether payment made out of money advanced for purpose of paying redundancy and wages – Corporations Act 2001, s 560 – Construction of expression "out of".

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M L Sifris	Gadens Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr M J Galvin	Arnold Bloch Leibler

HIS HONOUR:

This is an appeal against the defendant liquidators' rejection of a creditor's claim to priority in payment in the winding up of Dream Haven Bedding & Furniture Ltd ("Dream Haven"). The claim is made by Capt'n Snooze Management Pty Ltd ("CSM") which in June and July 2001 advanced three sums totalling $224,492.33 to Dream Haven. CSM made the advances after entering into a written agreement with Dream Haven under which CSM agreed to lend Dream Haven up to $500,000 "for the sole Purpose of [Dream Haven] making payment of Employee Entitlements pursuant to" s 560 of the Corporations Act.[1] The expression Employee Entitlements was defined to mean "wages and superannuation contributions and … leave of absence or termination of employment entitlements".[2] Under the agreement Dream Haven agreed that any advances "will be used solely for the Purpose",[3] the "Purpose" being the payment of employee entitlements referred to above. CSM deposited the three advances in Dream Haven's overdraft cheque account with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia as follows: $74,492.33 on 28 June 2001, $100,000 on 29 June 2001, and $50,000 on 5 July 2001. Dream Haven did not repay the advances, and went into liquidation. CSM asserted in its claim to the liquidators, and contends on this appeal, that the advances fall within s 560 and, in particular, that the advance of $74,492.33 was for redundancy payments and is within s 556(1)(g) or (h), and that the second and third payments were for wages and superannuation and are within s 556(1)(e).
[1]Clause 1.2.
[2]Recital A.
[3]Clause 2.1(a).

The liquidators rejected the claim to priority but admitted the whole amount as an unsecured or non-priority debt of Dream Haven. The claim for priority was disallowed on the ground that there was an insufficient nexus or traceable flow of funds from the making of the advances by CSM to the application of funds from the overdraft account to pay various…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Capt'n Snooze Management Pty Ltd v McLellan 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: [2002] VSC 432
Decision Date: 18 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Capt'n Snooze Management Pty Ltd versus McLellan involved the liquidator of the company seeking to recover funds paid by the company to its directors, including the defendant, McLellan. The dispute centred on whether these payments constituted preferential debts under the Corporations Act 2001. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the funds paid to Capt'n Snooze Management Pty Ltd by its directors, including McLellan, were intended for the purpose of paying redundancy and wages. Specifically, the court had to determine if these funds, which were deposited into the company's overdraft account, could be considered preferential debts under section 560 of the Corporations Act 2001. This required an interpretation of the phrase "out of" in the context of the funds being used for their intended purpose.

The court examined whether the payments made by the directors, including McLellan, were out of funds specifically intended for redundancy and wage payments. It was found that the funds were indeed deposited for the purpose of making such payments, even though they were placed in the company's overdraft account. Applying the rule in Clayton's case, the court concluded that since the payments were made out of money advanced for the specific purpose of paying redundancy and wages, they qualified as preferential debts. This interpretation was consistent with the legislative intent behind section 560 of the Corporations Act 2001.

The court ordered that the payments made by McLellan and the other directors to Capt'n Snooze Management Pty Ltd were preferential debts, thereby entitling the liquidator to recover these funds. This decision underscored the importance of the intended purpose behind payments made to a company, especially in the context of preferential debts under the Corporations Act 2001.

Orders