FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Clarke v Bridges [2004] FCA 394
CORPORATIONS – winding up – just and equitable – two-man company – deadlocked board
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 461(1)(k)
Ebrahimi v Westbourne GalleriesLtd. [1973] AC 360 referred to
Tivoli Freeholds Ltd., Re [1972] VR 445 cited
Yenidje Tobacco Company, Limited., In re [1916] 2 Ch 426 citedSTEPHEN CLARKE v LEITH ANDREW BRIDGES and 2BC PTY LTD
V 316 of 2004
FINKELSTEIN J
23 MARCH 2004
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
V 316 of 2004
BETWEEN:
STEPHEN CLARKE
PlaintiffAND:
LEITH ANDREW BRIDGES and
2BC PTY LTD
DefendantsJUDGE:
FINKELSTEIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 MARCH 2004
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. 2BC Pty Ltd be wound up.
2.Kenneth John Stout of Boutique Corporate Advisory of Level 2, 111 Collins Street, Melbourne Victoria be appointed Liquidator of the Company.
3. The Plaintiff’s application be otherwise dismissed.
4. The costs of the hearing on 23 March 2004 be costs in the winding up.
5.The Plaintiff pay the First Defendant’s costs incurred on 12 March 2004, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.
6.The First Defendant pay one half of the Plaintiff’s costs incurred on 16 March 2004, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.
7.The requirement for giving any notice of the winding up of the company required by the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) or the Corporations Regulations, other than the notice given to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission pursuant to s 470 of the Act, be dispensed with.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
V 316 of 2004
BETWEEN:
STEPHEN CLARKE
PlaintiffAND:
LEITH ANDREW BRIDGES and
2BC PTY LTD
Defendants
JUDGE:
FINKELSTEIN J
DATE:
23 MARCH 2004
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In 2001 Mr Clarke and Mr Bridges decided to open a wine bar in Blackburn, an outer Melbourne suburb. On the advice of Mr Clarke’s accountant they purchased a shelf company, 2BC Pty Ltd, to own and operate the business. Each man holds two of the four issued shares. Together they are the only directors.
Mr Bridges and his wife own the premises upon which the company conducted its business. Mr Clarke says that the parties agreed that the company would be granted a three year lease of the premises with two further options for three years each. The lease was oral; formal documents were never executed. The company spent money refurbishing the property to obtain a permit to operate the premises as a wine bar. The bar opened for business in February 2002.
In mid 2003 relations between Mr Clarke and Mr Bridges deteriorated. In September 2003 Mr Bridges and his wife served a notice to quit and in October 2003 the business shut down when the company vacated the premises. The business was sold two months later for about $72,000 despite…
Continue reading Clarke v Bridges
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Clarke v Bridges [2004] FCA 394
- Case
- [2004] FCA 394
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether Clarke had demonstrated that 2BC Pty Ltd was insolvent and thus qualified for a winding-up order under section 459A of the Corporations Act 2001. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Clarke, given his history of involvement with the company and his motives, was an appropriate applicant to seek the winding-up order. The court had to assess the evidence provided regarding the company's financial status and Clarke’s eligibility as an applicant, considering the criteria outlined in the Act and relevant case law.
The court found that Clarke had not provided sufficient evidence to establish the company's insolvency. Consequently, the court concluded that Clarke did not meet the statutory requirements for a winding-up order. Furthermore, the court held that Clarke was not a proper applicant for the winding-up order due to his past conduct and relationship with the company, which raised questions about his motives and eligibility. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for the winding up of 2BC Pty Ltd.
In its orders, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for winding up the company, noting that Clarke had not proven insolvency. The court appointed Kenneth John Stout as Liquidator, though the winding up was not proceeding. The costs associated with the hearing were determined, with specific provisions for the parties' financial responsibilities. Additionally, the court dispensed with the requirement to give notice of the winding up, except to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. This decision underscores the stringent criteria for winding up a company and the importance of appropriate applicant status in such proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. 2BC Pty Ltd be wound up.
2. Kenneth John Stout of Boutique Corporate Advisory of Level 2, 111 Collins Street, Melbourne Victoria be appointed Liquidator of the Company.
3. The Plaintiff’s application be otherwise dismissed.
4. The costs of the hearing on 23 March 2004 be costs in the winding up.
5. The Plaintiff pay the First Defendant’s costs incurred on 12 March 2004, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.
6. The First Defendant pay one half of the Plaintiff’s costs incurred on 16 March 2004, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.
7. The requirement for giving any notice of the winding up of the company required by the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) or the Corporations Regulations, other than the notice given to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission pursuant to s 470 of the Act, be dispensed with.
Note:
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
Established by: FINKELSTEIN J
Full text does not contain this section.