Coombes v Capital Certifiers Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2023] ACTSC 9
•27 January 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Coombes v Capital Certifiers Pty Ltd (No 2) |
Citation: | [2023] ACTSC 9 |
Hearing Date: | 18 November 2022 |
DecisionDate: | 27 January 2023 |
Before: | McWilliam AsJ |
Decision: | (1) Pursuant to s 500 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and r 6351 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), and subject to orders 2 and 3, leave is granted to the defendant, Capital Certifiers Pty Ltd (ACN 158 851 239), to commence proceedings against Emmadale Projects Pty Ltd (ACN 145 581 675) (in liquidation) (Emmadale) by way of third-party notice. (2) The defendant is to serve the third-party notice on Emmadale by 1 February 2023. (3) The defendant is not to seek to enforce any judgment obtained against Emmadale without the leave of the Court. (4) The costs of the application are to be the defendants’ costs of the proceeding. |
Catchwords: | CORPORATIONS – application for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation pursuant to Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 500(2) – where company in liquidation is not yet a party to proceedings – whether leave should be granted to join the company as a third-party notice – where leave has previously been refused to join the company in liquidation as a defendant to proceedings – whether it is desirable for the proposed third party to be bound by the outcome of litigation |
Legislation Cited: | Building Act 2004 (ACT) ss 140, 141 Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 21 Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) |
Cases Cited: | ACCC v Link Solutions Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1790 Tolhurst Druce & Emmerson v Marywell Investments Pty Ltd [2007] VSC 271 |
Texts Cited: | Corporations Legislation 2022 (Thomson Reuters, 2022) Meagher, Brian SC and Flint, Mark, LexisNexis Butterworths, Civil Procedure ACT, vol 1 (at Service 110) |
Parties: | Capital Certifiers Pty Ltd (Applicant/Defendant) Warren Coombes (Respondent/First Plaintiff) Emma Coombes (Respondent/Second Plaintiff) |
Representation: | Counsel M Hassall (Applicant/Defendant) B Buckland (Respondents/Plaintiffs) |
| Solicitors Wotton Kearney (Applicant/Defendant) Mills Oakley (Respondents/Plaintiffs) | |
File Number: | SC 97 of 2022 |
McWilliam AsJ
In early 2019, Warren and Emma Coombes (the plaintiffs) contracted with Emmadale Projects Pty Ltd (Emmadale) to construct a two-storey residential dwelling on their block of land in Yarralumla, ACT. Capital Certifiers Pty Ltd (Capital Certifiers) was appointed as the certifier on the project. By mid-2020, Emmadale had ceased work on the project and was placed into liquidation in April 2021. In April 2022, the plaintiffs commenced the present litigation against Capital Certifiers only, claiming damages relating to defective works. The plaintiffs allege that the works carried out on the project by Emmadale were so replete with defects as to require complete demolition.
The application
By its application filed 5 September 2022, Capital Certifiers now seeks to add Emmadale as a third party to the proceedings. It seeks leave to do so pursuant to s 500 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and Part 2.5 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) (the Rules), including leave to extend the time to file, required under r 6351.
The proposed third-party notice was before the Court. It appears to have been accepted for filing (erroneously) on 21 September 2022 but there is no doubt that the defendant requires leave to commence the proceedings. The notice seeks contribution towards, or indemnity in relation to, any liability found against the defendant in respect of the plaintiffs’ claim.
In the event that the application is granted, an order has also been proposed that Capital Certifiers will not seek to enforce any judgment obtained against Emmadale without further leave of the Court. The relief claimed in the notice is the contribution or indemnity as well as interest and costs.
The plaintiffs oppose the application on the basis that the third-party proceeding proposed would ultimately be futile for two reasons. They are addressed below, but broadly, the first is that Capital Certifiers would be unlikely to recover from Emmadale on a successful contribution claim. The second is that an apportionment claim would also fail because the parties would not fit the statutory criteria for an apportionment determination to arise.
When is the third-party procedure available?
The requirements for bringing a third-party claim are set out in Part 2.5 of the Rules, with r 302 providing (emphasis added):
302 Third-party proceeding—when available
A defendant may file a third-party notice if the defendant wants to—
(a)claim a contribution or indemnity against a person who is not already a party to the proceeding; or
(b)claim relief against a person who is not already a party to the proceeding that—
(i) relates to or is connected with the original subject matter of the proceeding; and
(ii) is substantially the same as some relief claimed by the plaintiff; or
(c)require an issue relating to or connected with the original subject matter of the proceeding to be decided not only as between the plaintiff and defendant but also between either of them and a person not already a party to the proceeding.
It is readily apparent from r 302 that the scope of third-party actions is not limited solely to claims for contribution or indemnity, although that may be the most common form. Rather, r 302(c) contemplates third-party actions that may also require the court to determine an issue as between the plaintiff and defendant or also as between either of them and the third party, whether or not there is also a claim for contribution.
The words emphasised above in the opening line of r 302 are to highlight that the language used is whether a defendant “wants” an issue relating to the proceedings to bind the proposed third party and potentially to claim contribution from them. The defendant does not have to prove that joinder is a matter of necessity (although plainly it would be if a claim in contribution is sought). It has been held elsewhere that an equivalent rule is to be given a liberal construction: see H Stanke & Sons Pty Ltd v Frederick John Von Stanke [2007] SASC 282 at [38] which also cited Canyon (Australia) Pty Ltd v Aktieselskabet Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg [2004] SASC 36 at [19]). I respectfully agree with that approach here.
In the present case, Capital Certifiers relies upon both bases under r 302(a) and (c) as the foundation for its third-party proceeding.
The Court’s discretion to grant leave to file third-party notice
10.A party may file a third-party notice without the leave of the court if it does so within the applicable time limit set by r 306 of the Rules, which is effectively 28 days after the filing of the defence. In this proceeding, Capital Certifiers filed its defence on 17 June 2022. The period for filing a third-party notice without leave expired on 15 July 2022.
11.The court has power to extend the time in which to file a third-party notice pursuant to r 6351 of the Rules. For the purposes of deciding this application, it is unnecessary to go beyond the cases discussed in the useful commentary to rule 300 to be found in Civil Procedure ACT: Brian Meagher SC and Mark Flint, LexisNexis Butterworths, vol 1 at [300.5]-[306.5].
12.The discretionary power to grant leave to file a third-party notice out of time was considered in Phonesivorabouth v Tops Services Pty Ltd (1992) 106 FLR 471 at 475 (Phonesivorabouth). When considering whether to exercise its discretion, the court is cognisant of the purpose of allowing third-party proceedings and will also seek to balance, on the one hand, the inconvenience to the plaintiff caused by the late addition against, on the other hand, the inconvenience to the defendant of not having the third-party issues dealt with at the same time: Phonesivorabouth at 476.
13.That guiding principle calls attention to, and requires some understanding of, the purpose of allowing third-party proceedings. The classic description of third-party actions comes from the judgment of Scrutton LJ in Barclays Bank v Tom [1923] 1 KB 221, at 223-4 (emphasis added):
Now I think it is important to keep clearly in mind what the third party procedure is. A plaintiff has a claim against a defendant. The defendant thinks if he is liable he has a claim over against a third party. With that matter between the defendant and the third party the plaintiff has obviously nothing to do. He is not concerned with the question whether the defendant has a remedy against somebody else. His remedy is against the defendant. But the defendant is much interested in getting the third party bound by the result of the trial between the plaintiff and himself, for otherwise he might be at a great disadvantage if, having fought the case against the plaintiff and lost, he had then to fight the case against the third party possible on different materials, with the risk that a different result might be arrived at. The object of the third party procedure is then in the first place to get the third party bound by the decision between the plaintiff and the defendant. In the next place it is directed to getting the question between the defendant and the third party decided as soon as possible after the decision between the plaintiff and the defendant, so that the defendant may not be in the position of having to wait a considerable time before he establishes his right of indemnity against the third party while all the time the plaintiff is enforcing his judgment against the defendant. And thirdly, it is directed to saving the extra expense which would be involved by two independent actions. With these objects in view the third party order usually provides that the third party may appear at the trial between the plaintiff and the defendant.
14.It is also relevant that in the ACT a third-party claim is also a creature of statute: see Brennan v Capital Weed Control Pty Ltd [2013] ACTSC 78 at [5]. As a consequence, the purpose apparent from the statutory framework providing for the making of third-party claims will also inform the Court’s consideration of the purpose of allowing third-party proceedings.
Should leave to extend time be granted here?
15.The factors that I consider bear upon the application for leave under r 6351 include whether there has been any delay, any explanation for the delay, the progress of the proceeding, what effect the commencement of third-party proceedings might have on the plaintiff, and the converse, namely what effect may be caused to the defendant in not having the third-party proceeding determined at the same time.
16.The plaintiff did not file a third-party notice initially because it sought to join Emmadale as a defendant. That application was unsuccessful: Coombes v Capital Certifiers Pty Ltd [2022] ACTSC 165. In that decision, Elkaim J dealt with the joinder issue without giving consideration to whether leave to proceed should be granted pursuant to s 500 of the Corporations Act, where Capital Certifiers had relied on s 141 of the Building Act 2004 (ACT) (Building Act) and where it had indicated to the Court (rightly or wrongly) that it could not achieve its purpose under s 141 through third party proceedings.
17.The decision is useful for the context it provides to the present application. At [9]-[11]. Elkaim J stated:
[9] The right to rely on an assertion of proportionate liability is to be found in s 141 of the Building Act 2004 (ACT) (Building Act). There is no dispute that the current proceedings are a “building action” as defined in s 140.
[10] Pursuant to s 141(3), if the defendant was able to show that Emmadale was “liable for a proportionate part of damages” then it would not be liable to the plaintiffs for any more than its own assessed proportion of those damages.
[11] I was informed that in cases of this type an assessment of proportionate liability as between a certifier and a builder might be in the order of about 20 per cent to 80 per cent in favour of the certifier. Clearly therefore it is very much in the defendant’s interest to be able to take advantage of s 141.
18.His Honour dismissed the application. His Honour found (at [23]-[27]) that because the plaintiffs did not wish to proceed against Emmadale (only Capital Certifiers sought to join the company in liquidation), Emmadale did not satisfy the definition of “defendant” in r 20(1) of the Rules, and therefore could not be joined.
19.The present application was filed in a relatively timely manner following delivery of Elkaim J’s decision. Although bearing some similarities with the present application, the earlier interlocutory judgment of Elkaim J does not overlap with the present issues for determination. I therefore do not need to consider whether there are changed circumstances such as to warrant revisiting an earlier interim decision of the Court on the same subject, as to which see Catanzariti v Muller [2017] ACTSC 365 at [8]. The plaintiffs also helpfully drew the Court’s attention to Commonwealth of Australia v Albany Port Authority [2006] WASCA 185 at [23]-[28], but as I have indicated, on a close reading of Elkaim J’s decision, the present application does not seek to revisit or overturn the orders previously made.
20.The proceeding is at a stage where a hearing date has not yet been set (although there is a listing hearing awaiting the outcome of this application). There are no costs consequences for vacating a hearing date and court resources have not yet been allocated to the hearing of the matter.
21.Further, as with its previous application to the Court, Capital Certifiers has confirmed its willingness to be bound by a condition on the grant of leave that it not seek to enforce any judgment obtained against Emmadale without first obtaining the leave of the Court. That is a matter of more significance for considerations under s 500 of the Corporations Act, but it is also of relevance here. The liquidator has not given consent to be joined to the proceeding as a third party. The reasons for that attitude to the liquidation are discussed separately below. For present purposes, one of those reasons is that there are no funds available to the liquidator to meet the costs of keeping the liquidation open, including the burden of having to continue to monitor the proceedings. The contents of the liquidator’s correspondence are such that it is likely the liquidator will not take active steps to defend the proceedings.
22.That has a consequence for the balancing of considerations, in that if the liquidator takes no active role in the proceedings, there is unlikely to be any significant delay in listing the proceeding for a final hearing occasioned by permitting Emmadale to be joined as a third party.
23.The right of Capital Certifiers to seek contribution from Emmadale is found at s 21 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) (Wrongs Act), which relevantly provides:
21 Right of contribution
(1)A person (the first person) who is liable for damage caused by a wrong can recover contribution from someone else (a contributory) who is also liable for the same damage.
(2)The contribution must be an amount that the court considers just and equitable having regard to the extent of the contributory’s responsibility for the damage.
…
24.Clearly, a contribution claim by Capital Certifiers against Emmadale is prima facie available. Any potential liability of Capital Certifiers (a matter yet to be determined) arises out of the same alleged defective building works performed by Emmadale. Indeed, it is hard to see how Capital Certifiers could be found liable for any loss and damage without a finding of underlying defective work performed by Emmadale. But for the fact that Emmadale went into liquidation, it would have been squarely open to the plaintiffs to sue Emmadale directly. The subject matter is therefore clearly connected with the substance of the litigation as between the plaintiffs and Capital Certifiers. In the event that part of any liability found against Capital Certifiers is attributable to Emmadale, if Emmadale is a third party to the proceedings, it and the plaintiffs will be “bound by the result of the trial”.
25.The plaintiffs maintained their position that s 141 of the Building Act excluded the operation of s 21 of the Wrongs Act. Section 141 is in the following terms (emphasis added):
141 Limit of liability of people jointly or severally liable
(1) A court that decides an award of damages in a building action must give judgment against each defendant to the action who is found to be jointly or severally liable for the damage for the proportion of the total amount of the damages that the court considers to be just, having regard to the extent of that defendant's responsibility for the loss or damage.
(2) The liability for damages of a person found to be jointly or severally liable for damages in a building action is limited to the amount for which judgment is given against the person, even if another Act or a rule of law provides otherwise.
(3) A person found to be liable for a proportionate part of damages under subsection (1) in a building action is not liable to contribute to the damages apportioned to anyone else in the action or to indemnify any other person in relation to the damages.
26.However, there was also an argument that if Emmadale was joined as third party rather than as a defendant, the present case may not come within s 141 of the Building Act because the plaintiffs did not sue Emmadale directly. “Building action” is defined in s 140 as follows:
In this part:
building action—
(a) means an action (including a counterclaim) for damages for loss or damage in relation to—
(i) defective building work; or
(ii) defective construction work other than building work; or
(iii) the negligent exercise by a licensed construction practitioner of a function as a certifier, or the negligent failure to exercise such a function; but
(b) does not include an action for damages for death or personal injury.
27.I express no view on the operation of section 141. The word “action” may simply be a reference to a proceeding as opposed to an individual cause of action (noting that the definition of “proceeding” in the Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) is “a legal or other action or proceeding”). The position is far from clear and arguments about the interplay and operation of the two sections ought to be a matter reserved for close consideration at trial.
28.What is important, from the perspective of balancing the competing inconveniences between the parties, is that without Emmadale involved in the proceedings, there is possibly a substantial penalty imposed on Capital Certifiers as the defendant, whose liability might otherwise have been significantly reduced if it had been able to pursue its allegation of proportionate liability against the builder. This was pointed out by Elkaim J, at [29] of the interlocutory judgment referred to above.
29.Elkaim J went on in the same paragraph to also observe that “the plaintiffs could have their damages against the defendant significantly reduced without the option of recovering the builder’s proportion of the damages.” That consideration carries little weight in circumstances where the joinder is by way of third-party notice. As the plaintiffs emphasised during the hearing, they are not suing Emmadale. The concern of the court is to protect the conduct of the litigation, not to protect the plaintiffs from a result that might ultimately affect their ability to recover damages. While the Court is not blind to the impact that might flow where the third party proposed to be joined is a company in liquidation, the question of leave deals with who should be a party to the litigation at a threshold level. The exercise of the discretion should not be diverted by concerns about the potential consequence for the plaintiffs if a particular outcome is established on the facts.
30.Taking these matters into consideration, the matter is squarely one that is connected with the original subject matter of the proceeding and if the liquidator had indicated any commercial basis giving rise to a wish to be joined (or even for example, for reputational reasons of the company), it could hardly be said that Emmadale is not an interested party in this litigation. The third-party notice is unlikely to cause any procedural inconvenience to the plaintiff other than legal arguments about statutory construction on questions of proportionate liability. There was no suggestion that the evidence necessary to run the trial would be expanded if a third party were joined. Subject to the operation of s 500 of the Corporations Act considered separately below, it is appropriate to grant leave to file the third-party notice pursuant to r 6351 of the Rules.
Application for leave under s 500 of the Corporations Act
31.Because Emmadale went into liquidation on or about 23 April 2021, following the passing of a resolution winding up the company, leave of the court is required to commence any civil action against it: s 500(2) of the Corporations Act. The section is in the following terms:
(2) After the passing of the resolution for voluntary winding up, no action or other civil proceeding is to be proceeded with or commenced against the company except by leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court imposes.
32.That is a separate hurdle to r 6351, and requires different considerations before leave to proceed may be granted.
The relevant factors
33.The principles for determining an application under s 500(2) are the same as those applying to s 471B of the Corporations Act, which prevents legal actions against companies without leave of the court where they are being wound up in insolvency. The matter is one within the Court’s discretion: Commonwealth v Davis Samuel Pty Ltd (No 5) [2008] ACTSC 124; 164 ACTR 1 at [19] per Refshauge J. His Honour there identified (at [30]) a number of factors relevant to the exercise of the Court’s discretion, two of which include:
(a)Where it is desirable for the company to be bound by the outcome of the proceedings: Re Addstone Pty Ltd; Ex parte Macks (1998) 30 ACSR 162 at 174.
(b)Mere delay itself in applying for leave will not prevent leave being granted and leave will not be withheld simply as a punishment: Re A J Benjamin Ltd (in liq) (1969) 90 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 107 at 110; Ex parte Walker (1982) 6 ACLR 423 at 426.
34.In the present case, it is desirable for the company to be bound by the outcome of the proceeding because of the matters referred to above on the question of whether time should be extended. Delay does not operate here. Capital Certifiers could not have brought the proceedings before the company went into liquidation as it was only sued by the plaintiffs in 2022.
35.A more comprehensive list is also to be found in the annotated Corporations Legislation 2022 (Thomson Reuters, 2022) at [CA.471B.60]-[CA.471B.80]. The factors that I consider to be relevant to a grant of leave here include:
(a)Whether the applicant’s case has a solid foundation and gives rise to a serious dispute: Tolhurst Druce & Emmerson v Marywell Investments Pty Ltd [2007] VSC 271 (Tolhurst) at [157]-[164], where a solid foundation was described as less than “a prima facie case” but more than a “mere assertion”. Here, the case must be said to have a solid foundation, as the plaintiffs have pleaded defects sufficient to amount to negligence on the part of the builder and led evidence in support. The proposed dispute as between Capital Certifiers and Emmadale is based purely on certification of the work said to be defective.
(b)The complexity of the issues involved, and, ultimately, whether the applicant should be forced to submit a proof of debt rather than bringing a separate action: Re Gordon Grant and Grant Pty Ltd (1983) Qd R 314 at 317; Pace Tasmania Pty Ltd v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd [2001] TASSC 112; 10 Tas R 276 at [5]-[7]; King v Yurisich [2006] FCA 1369 at [13]-[15]. Here, that factor also favours the applicant, as it cannot submit a proof of debt to the liquidator. Because of the nature of the debt being based on negligence and proportionate liability legislation, Capital Certifiers would need to have a judgment in its favour against Emmadale in this litigation or separate proceedings in order to submit a proof of debt.
(c)Whether the creditor will be able to obtain relief from the liquidation: ACCC v Link Solutions Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1790; Chahwan v Euphoric Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1002 at [40] per Barrett J. Here, Capital Certifiers presently has no relief from the liquidation. In Tyrrell v Tyrrells Building Consultancy Pty Ltd (2008) 66 ACSR 134; [2008] NSWSC 416 Austin J said at [30]:
Section 471B is not restricted to cases where the applicant for leave may also prove in the winding up; indeed, the fact that there is an obstacle to lodging a proof of debt, if it be so, is (or is part of) a ground for granting leave.
Again, it can be seen that such consideration favours the grant of leave because the claim here is yet to be determined before Capital Certifiers may properly be said to be a creditor and therefore entitled to lodge a proof of debt.
(d)The amount and seriousness of the claim: BHG Nominees Pty Ltd v Ellis Young Investments Pty Ltd (1998) 16 ACLC 1539; Re Enivro Pallets (NSW) Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 220. Given the nature of the claim by the plaintiffs against Capital Certifiers, the amount in question may be significant, running to more than half a million dollars. It is certainly a claim worthy of litigation.
(e)Whether there is any procedural or substantive prejudice to the creditors, resulting from the proceedings: Maher v Taylor [1984] 1 NSWLR 231 at 234. Here, the evidence established that the liquidator had already completed all steps necessary in the liquidation. Having done so, there is no dividend on offer. Further, as Capital Certifiers would not be a secured creditor, it could not claim priority even if there were a dividend. There is no procedural or substantive prejudice to creditors.
(f)Whether the granting of leave will unleash an avalanche of litigation: see Capita Financial Group Ltd v Rothwells Ltd (No 2) (1989) 15 ACLR 348; Re Enviro Pallets (NSW) Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 220. There is no suggestion that is the case here.
(g)Whether it might be futile for the Court to grant leave: Distinctive FX9 Pty Ltd v Statewide Developments Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 110 per Emmett JA at [19] (Ward JA agreeing) and per Barrett JA at [20]; Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) v CCM Holdings Trust Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 42 (CCM Holdings) per Gleeson JA at [42].
36.In relation to futility, the plaintiffs drew the Court’s attention to the comments of Gleeson JA in CCM Holdings where his Honour noted (at [55]):
There may be other factors against the grant of leave such as where there is no prospect of surplus assets in the company for distribution to unsecured creditors and no question of insurance, because the Court will not give its imprimatur to fruitless proceedings…
37.In the case here, the liquidator’s correspondence has confirmed that not only is there no dividend on offer in the liquidation, but that the liquidator is unaware of any pre-appointment insurance policies held in Emmadale’s name that could benefit Capital Certifiers in respect to the proposed proceedings.
38.However, what is also relevant to the consideration of futility here is that Capital Certifiers is not seeking to commence, continue or appeal freestanding proceedings for the purpose of seeking any assets of the company. Its purpose is to attempt to reduce its liability and exposure to the plaintiffs. In the event that the proceedings brought by Capital Certifiers against Emmadale were successful, even declaratory relief may have significant financial utility for it. I therefore do not accept that the proceedings would have no value or utility to Capital Certifiers.
39.The liquidator has indicated that there are no funds to meet the costs of keeping the liquidation open and that the liquidator is unfunded to obtain legal advice as to what may be in the best interest of the company and its creditors. That might have greater force if the question of leave was whether the company itself should commence an action or whether a derivative proceeding may be commenced. I do accept that it is relevant to utility and for reasons already addressed above, in the circumstances of this case, it is not determinative against a grant of leave. Moreover, a condition of the grant of leave that no enforcement of any judgment could be obtained without the further leave of the court would significantly ameliorate the liquidator’s concerns.
40.Drawing together those factors, the balance overwhelmingly favours the grant of leave.
Conclusion
41.For these reasons, the orders of the Court are as follows:
(1)Pursuant to s 500 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and r 6351 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), and subject to orders 2 and 3, leave is granted to the defendant, Capital Certifiers Pty Ltd (ACN 158 851 239) to commence proceedings against Emmadale Projects Pty Ltd (ACN 145 581 675) (in liquidation) (Emmadale) by way of third-party notice.
(2)The defendant is to serve any third-party notice by 1 February 2023.
(3)The defendant is not to seek to enforce any judgment obtained against Emmadale without the leave of the Court.
(4)The costs of the application are to be the defendant’s costs of the proceeding.
| I certify that the preceding forty-one [41] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Associate Justice McWilliam. Associate: Date: 27 January 2023 |
0
2
5