Dueeasy Pty Ltd v D and M Hughes Civil Engineering Pty Ltd (in liq)

The case of Dueeasy Pty Ltd v D and M Hughes Civil Engineering Pty Ltd (in liq) involved a dispute over the validity of a deed executed post-liquidation by a director of the company in liquidation. The deed purported to transfer the interest of one joint venturer in a property development to two other joint venturers. The court was required to determine whether the deed was effective, and whether the other joint venturers could rely on any equitable doctrine, such as estoppel, to enforce the deed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the deed, which was executed after the company's liquidation, was valid and binding. The court needed to consider the effect of the liquidation on the company's ability to transfer its interest, the requirements for creating an equitable interest in property, and the availability of estoppel as a means to enforce the deed. The court also had to consider whether the other joint venturers were precluded from making certain arguments due to the lack of notice.

The court found that the deed was void and of no effect, as it was executed after the company's liquidation. The court held that the company could not transfer its interest in the property development after liquidation without the necessary authorisation. Furthermore, the court found that there was no oral declaration of trust or transfer of interest by the company prior to liquidation, and that any such declaration or transfer would have been ineffective due to the absence of writing. The court also held that there was no estoppel preventing the enforcement of the deed, as the other joint venturers had not relied on any representation or assurance made by the company prior to liquidation. Finally, the court held that the other joint venturers were precluded from maintaining certain arguments, as they had not given notice of these arguments at the commencement of the hearing or until the close of evidence.

The court ordered that the deed was void and of no effect, and that the other joint venturers were not entitled to any relief in respect of the property development. The court also ordered that the company in liquidation was entitled to recover any costs associated with the litigation.