Dean-Willcocks Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2)

The respondents, as liquidators of a company, initiated proceedings against the first and second defendants for the recovery of an unfair preference. The first defendant, who is the company's former director, admitted to the company's insolvency at the time of the transaction in question. The liquidators sought to establish the insolvency of the company as part of their claim for the recovery of the preference. The first defendant argued that the liquidators' evidence was insufficient to establish the company's insolvency, and the second defendant contended that the directors should have been notified before the orders under s 588FF were made.

The court was required to determine whether the admission of insolvency by the first defendant was sufficient evidence of the company's insolvency at the time of the transaction. The court also needed to consider whether the directors of the company should have been notified before the orders under s 588FF were made. The court held that the admission of insolvency by the first defendant was sufficient evidence of the company's insolvency at the time of the transaction, and that the directors did not need to be notified before the orders were made. The court found that the liquidators had established the company's insolvency at the relevant time, and that the transaction was an unfair preference.

The court held that the admission of insolvency by the first defendant was sufficient to establish the company's insolvency at the time of the transaction. The court found that the first defendant's admission was a voluntary admission, and that such admissions are generally accepted as evidence of the fact admitted. The court also held that the directors of the company did not need to be notified before the orders under s 588FF were made. The court found that the orders were made in the best interests of the company and its creditors, and that the directors' interests were adequately protected by the orders themselves. The court ordered that the first defendant pay the respondents the amount of the unfair preference, together with interest and costs.

The court ordered that the first defendant pay the liquidators the amount of the unfair preference, together with interest and costs. The court also ordered that the second defendant pay the liquidators the costs of the proceeding. The court found that the liquidators had established their case for the recovery of the unfair preference, and that the orders were just and equitable in all the circumstances. The court held that the liquidators were entitled to recover the amount of the unfair preference from the first defendant, and that the second defendant was liable for the costs of the proceeding.