D'Aloia v Jarvie - [2000] VSC 16

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Do not Send for Reporting Not Restricted
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION CORPORATIONS JURISDICTION

No. 4183 of 2000

In the Matter of the Corporations Law of Victoria,

Sections 438B, 447A, 447D, 1324
and

In the Matter of Smarter Way (Aust) Pty Ltd
(ACN 087 747 359)

Anthony D'Aloia and Geoffrey Niels Handberg (As Administrators of Smarter Way (Aust) Pty Ltd)	Applicants
V
Phillip David Jarvie	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Mandie J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 February 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 February 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	D'Aloia v Jarvie
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 16

---

Corporations – whether administrators duly appointed pursuant to "charge" – s.436C(1) Corporations Law

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicants	Mr D Denton	Behan & Speed
For the Respondent	Mr C Gunst QC	Stamfords

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application by notice of motion dated 31 January 2000 by the applicants who are described as the administrators of Smarter Way (Aust) Pty Ltd (in administration). The respondent is the managing and sole director and sole shareholder of that company (which I will refer to as "Smart").

The primary relief sought by the applicants is an order that the respondent deliver up to them all assets and books of Smart in his possession. The applicants say that they have been appointed as administrators of Smart pursuant to s.436C(1) of the Corporations Law ("the Law") which empowers a person who is entitled to enforce a charge on the whole, or substantially the whole, of a company's property, to appoint an administrator if the charge has become and still is enforceable.

It is not disputed that the applicants were purportedly appointed in writing as administrators by Waiviata International Limited ("Waiviata") on 28 January 2000. What is principally is dispute is whether the alleged charge said to be constituted by or contained in a written agreement between Waiviata of the one part and Smart and the respondent of the other part, made on or about 6 January 2000, is a charge within the meaning of s.436C(1) of the Law.

The said agreement recites that Smart operates a business of an internet service provider for approximately 4,000 clients and has assets which include contracts with clients, intellectual property rights to exclusively use the domain name " trade debtors of about $105,000, cash on hand, computer hardware worth about $150,000, computer software and business goodwill.

The agreement further recites that Waiviata and Smart had begun discussions regarding the acquisition of the business and its assets by Waiviata, and that Smart and the respondent had requested a short‑term loan facility from Waiviata on the terms and conditions of the agreement which Waiviata was prepared to provide.

Clauses 1 and 2 of the agreement are to the effect that after a lawyer for Smart and the respondent has certified that he or she has explained to them the operation and effect of the agreement, and that in his or her opinion they understand it, Waiviata…

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 D'Aloia v Jarvie 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: [2000] VSC 16
Decision Date: 2 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

D'Aloia v Jarvie was a case that came before the Court where the central dispute was whether administrators appointed under a specific section of the Corporations Law were validly appointed. The Court was required to determine the validity of the appointment of administrators to a company, specifically whether the administrators were properly appointed in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Corporations Law.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the administrators of the company, D'Aloia, were duly appointed pursuant to section 436C(1) of the Corporations Law. The Court needed to examine the process by which the administrators were appointed and determine if this process complied with the statutory requirements. This involved an analysis of the language of section 436C(1) and how it should be interpreted in the context of the appointment process.

The Court, in its judgment, examined the statutory language and found that the appointment process did not strictly adhere to the requirements set out in section 436C(1). The Court concluded that the administrators were not duly appointed as the process did not comply with the statutory provisions. Consequently, the Court ruled that the administrators were not validly appointed, leading to the decision that their actions were not legally binding. This ruling had significant implications for the company's administration and future governance.

Orders