Legal Research
Cases
Commonwealth v Davis Samuel Pty Ltd (No 5)

Commonwealth v Davis Samuel Pty Ltd (No 5)

Link copied

Case Copied 14 March 2008 33 min read

Contents

On this page

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA v DAVIS SAMUEL PTY LTD [NO 5]
[2008] ACTSC 124 (14 March 2008 and 23 May 2008)

CORPORATIONS – Winding up – incidents of – proceedings against company in liquidation – leave to proceed – principles for grant of leave – leave granted nunc pro tunc – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 471B.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 471B
Corporations Act 1989 (Cth)
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT)

Acton Engineering Pty Ltd v Campbell (1991) 31 FCR 1
Sydlow Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v T G Kotselas Pty Ltd and Ors (1996) 65 FCR 234
In re Phoenix Oil and Transport Co Ltd (No 2) [1958] Ch 565
Re Gordon Grant and Grant Pty Ltd [1983] 2 Qd R 314
Thomson v Mulgoa Irrigation Co Ltd (1894) 4 BC(NSW) 33
Re Clarke; Ex parte Clarke (1896) 17 LR (NSW) B & P 85
Re Sydney Formworks Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [1965] NSWR 646
Vagrand Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Fielding and Ors (1993) 41 FCR 550
Nommack (No 100) Pty Ltd v FAI Insurances Ltd (in liq) (2003) 45 ACSR 215
Re Addstone Pty Ltd (in liq); Ex parte Macks (1998) 30 ACSR 162
Maher v Taylor [1984] 1 NSWLR 231
Re Summit Design & Construction Pty Ltd (1999) 33 ACSR 301
Stewart v Leppage (1916) 53 SCR 337
Pace Tasmania Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd (provisional liquidator appointed) (2001) 10 Tas R 276
Buckingham and Ors v Pan Laboratories (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq) (2004) 136 FCR 102
Bell v Amberday Pty Ltd and Anor (2001) 39 ACSR 25
Civil & Civic Pty Ltd v R W Bass Pty Ltd (1996) 20 ACSR 16
Re Aro Co Ltd [1980] Ch 196
Meehan and Anor v Stockmans Australian Café (Holdings) Pty Ltd and Anor (1996) 22 ACSR 123
Ibbco v HIH (2001) 19 ACLC 1,093
Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Ltd & Ors (2003) 45 ACSR 224
King and Ors v Yurisich and Ors (2006) 59 ACSR 598
Morrison-Gardiner v Car Choice Pty Ltd [2005] 1 Q d R 378
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
R v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia and Anor; Ex parte The Western Australian National Football League (Incorporated) and Anor (1979) 143 CLR 190
Witten v Lombard Australia Ltd [1968] 2 NSWR 529
Re A J Benjamin Ltd (in liq) (1969) 90 WN(Pt1) (NSW) 107
Capita Financial Group Ltd v Rothwells Ltd (1989) 15 ACLR 348

Zempilas and Ors v J N Taylor Holdings Ltd (in prov liq) and Ors (No 3) (1991) 55 SASR 108

Fielding & Anor v Vagrand Pty Ltd (in liq)& Ors (1992) 39 FCR 251

O D Transport (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq) v O D Transport Pty Ltd (1997) 80 FCR 290

Hall v Mercury Information Technology (South Australia) Pty…

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 Commonwealth v Davis Samuel Pty Ltd (No 5) 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: [2008] ACTSC 124
Decision Date: 14 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Commonwealth brought an action against Davis Samuel Pty Ltd, a company that had been wound up, in the Federal Court of Australia. The Commonwealth sought recovery of a debt that it claimed was owed by the company. The central issue before the court was whether the Commonwealth was entitled to bring proceedings against the company after it had been wound up and whether leave should be granted for the proceedings to continue. This involved examining the legal framework provided by the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), particularly section 471B, which outlines the circumstances under which leave to proceed with such actions can be granted.

The court considered the principles established in previous cases regarding the grant of leave to proceed with actions against a company in liquidation. It noted that leave is not automatically granted post-liquidation and must be justified on specific grounds. The Commonwealth argued that the debt was of a nature that it should be pursued even after the company had been wound up, and that justice required the proceedings to continue. The court examined the nature of the debt and the potential impact on creditors and the public interest, ultimately concluding that the circumstances warranted granting leave nunc pro tunc, meaning as if it had been done at the proper time.

In granting leave, the court emphasised that the decision was based on the unique facts of the case and the nature of the debt in question. It found that the public interest and the need to ensure that debts of a particular kind are pursued justified the granting of leave despite the company being in liquidation. The court’s decision was grounded in the need to balance the rights of creditors with the broader implications of the debt for public policy and economic stability. This nuanced approach ensured that justice was served in a manner consistent with the statutory framework and the principles of equity.

Orders