Legal Research
Cases
Dean-Willcocks v Air Transit International Pty Ltd

Dean-Willcocks v Air Transit International Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 12 June 2002 35 min read

Contents

On this page

Reported Decision:
(2002) 42 ACSR 328
(2002) 55 NSWLR 64
(2002) 20 ACLC 1464

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Dean-Willcocks v Air Transit International [2002] NSWSC 525

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5662/01, 5862/01

HEARING DATE(S): 12 April, 3 and 6 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 12 June 2002

PARTIES :

5662/01
Ronald John Dean-Willcocks as liquidator (P1)
Austral Pacific Group Ltd (in liq) (P2)
Austral Pacific Group Purchasing Pty Ltd (in liq) (P3)
Saydair Commercial Seating Pty Ltd (in liq) (P4)
Air Transit International Pty Ltd (D1)
and 58 other defendants listed in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the Originating Process
5862/01
Ronald John Dean-Willcocks as liquidator (P1)
Clifford Corporation Ltd (in liq) (P2)
Commissioner of Taxation (D1)
and 12 other defendants listed in the Schedule to the Originating Process

JUDGMENT OF: Austin J

COUNSEL :
5662/01
Mr C R C Newlinds (Ps)
Mr D R Pritchard (D1 in Sch 1 & 3)
Mr H Stowe (D3, D12 in Sch 1)
Mr R Cameron (D19 in Sch 2)
Mr G K Burton (D23 in Sch 2)
Mr Bavin (D6 in Sch 2)
5862/01
Mr C R C Newlinds (Ps)
Mr R Gye (D2)
Mr McConnell (D4)
Mr H Stowe (D5)
Mr Kalbrand (D6)

SOLICITORS: Kemp Strang (Ps)
Cutler Hughes & Harris (D1 in Sch 1 & 3)
and various other solicitors

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - liquidation - proceedings by liquidator for recovery of unfair preferences - whether multiple claims can be brought against many defendants - whether claims can be brought in respect of more than one company in liquidation

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Pt 5.7B Div 2
Supreme Court Rules, Pt 8

CASES CITED: ABB Engineering Constructions Pty Ltd v Freight Rail Corporation [1999] NSWSC 1037
Bishop v Bridgelands Securities Ltd (1990) 25 FCR 311
Carter v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) [2001] FCA 575
Marina v Esanda Ltd [1986] VR 735
Newman v Hold Pty Ltd [2001] VSC 282
Payne v Young (1981) 145 CLR 609
Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgelands Securities Ltd (1991) ATPR paragraph 41-078, at 52,165
Sutherland v Eurolinx Pty Ltd (2001) 37 ACSR 477

DECISION: Applications by various defendants for summary dismissal etc dismissed; leave granted to liquidator to continue with proceedings; proceedings stood over for directions

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

AUSTIN J

WEDNESDAY 12 JUNE 2002

5662/01 RONALD JOHN DEAN-WILLCOCKS & ORS V AIR TRANSIT INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD & ORS

5862/01 RONALD JOHN DEAN-WILLCOCKS & ORS V COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION & ORS

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

The proceedings

1 In these two proceedings a company liquidator, Mr Dean-Willcocks, seeks to recover alleged unfair preferences. Initially he was one of two joint liquidators, but as a result of orders made in another proceeding he is now the sole liquidator. In proceeding No 5662 of 2001 he sues as liquidator of three companies in the Austral Pacific Group, namely Austral Pacific Group Ltd ("Austral"), Austral Pacific Purchasing Pty Ltd ("Purchasing") and Saydair Commercial Seating…

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 Dean-Willcocks v Air Transit International Pty Ltd 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: [2002] NSWSC 525
Decision Date: 12 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dean-Willcocks v Air Transit International Pty Ltd involved a liquidator seeking to recover unfair preferences in respect of multiple companies in liquidation. The liquidator brought proceedings against various defendants, including the respondent, Air Transit International Pty Ltd, to recover payments made to them by the companies prior to their liquidation. The dispute centred on whether the liquidator could bring multiple claims against various defendants and whether claims could be brought in respect of more than one company in liquidation.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: first, whether the liquidator could bring multiple claims against various defendants, and second, whether claims could be brought in respect of more than one company in liquidation. The court had to consider whether the liquidator was entitled to bring separate claims against each defendant for each company in liquidation, or whether the claims should be consolidated into a single proceeding.

The court held that the liquidator could bring separate claims against each defendant for each company in liquidation, provided that each claim was independent and did not involve common issues of fact or law. The court also held that claims could be brought in respect of more than one company in liquidation, provided that the claims were not duplicative and each company's interests were protected. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the rights of all parties, including creditors, were protected in the proceedings.

The court ordered that the liquidator could bring separate claims against each defendant for each company in liquidation, provided that the claims were not duplicative and each company's interests were protected. The court also ordered that the proceedings should be conducted in a manner that ensured the rights of all parties were protected. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the liquidator's actions were in the best interests of the creditors and did not unfairly prejudice any party.

Orders