Elfic Ltd v Macks

Case [2000] QSC 18


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Elfic Limited (ACN 007 606 206) & Ors v Peter Ivan Macks & Ors and GIO Insurance Limited (ACN 052 179 647) and The Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited (ACN 123 123 124) [2000] QSC 18
PARTIES:

ELFIC LIMITED (ACN 007 606 206)
First Plaintiff
-and-
LENSWORTH PROPERTIES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 007 520 649)
Second Plaintiff
-and-

GLENMORE PARK ESTATE LIMITED
(ACN 007 533 888)
Third Plaintiff
-and-

FOSTER’S BREWING GROUP LIMITED
(ACN 007 620 886)
Fourth Plaintiff
-and-
KINGLINGSTON PTY LTD
(ACN 068 499 874)
Fifth Plaintiff
-and-
CALOUNDRA DOWNS PTY LTD
(ACN 068 356 525)
Sixth Plaintiff
-and-
CABOOLTURE WATERS PTY LTD
(ACN 068 499 810)
Seventh Plaintiff
-and-
MANGO HILL DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD
(ACN 068 244 762)

Eighth Plaintiff
-and-
JOHN FRANCIS O’GRADY
Ninth Plaintiff
-and-
JOHN DANIEL CROSBY
Tenth Plaintiff
-and-

v

PETER IVAN MACKS
First Defendant
-and-

EMANUEL MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 007 840 913)
Second Defendant
-and-
SEGACIOUS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 748 544)
Third Defendant
-and-
MEKA SECURITIES PTY LTD (IN LIQUDATION)
(ACN 007 724 629)
Fourth Defendant
-and-
COFORDO 251 PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 683 584)
Fifth Defendant
-and-
GRANGEVILLE PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 008 104 854)
Sixth Defendant
-and-
EMANUEL (NO.14) PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 008 080 206)
Seventh Defendant
-and-
P.B.R.S. PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 007 799 546)
Eighth Defendant
-and-
PATERSON & CO PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 007 679 763)
Ninth Defendant
-and-
GIUSEPPE NOMINEES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 007 771 486)
Tenth Defendant
-and-
LONSDALE STAGE 2 PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 007 812 928)
Eleventh Defendant
-and-
EMANUEL PROPERTIES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDAITON)
(ACN 007 740 123)
Twelfth Defendant
-and-
EMANUEL (NO.4) PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 008 036 995)
Thirteenth Defendant
-and-

EMANUEL (RUNDLE MALL) PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDAITON)
(ACN 007 983 851)
Fourteenth Defendant
VILLA-CAIRNS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 633 459)
Fifteenth Defendant
-and-
ADDSTONE PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDAITON)
(ACN 010 764 977)
 Sixteenth Defendant
-and-
ANTLIA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 688 776)
Seventeenth Defendant
-and-
CENTAURUS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 688 767)
Eighteenth Defendant
-and-
CLOUDLAND INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION
(ACN 010 319 730)
Nineteenth Defendant
-and-
COFORDO 260 PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 685 775)
Twentieth Defendant
-and-
DERWENT WATER PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 688 721)
Twenty-first Defendant
-and-
EMANUEL (NO.7) PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDAITON)
(ACN 008 053 352)
Twenty-second Defendant
-and-
LASCIVIOUS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 749 032)
Twenty-third Defendant
-and-
LEOMINOR PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDAITON)
(ACN 010 688 758)
Twenty-fourth Defendant
-and-
LIVILLA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 748 571)
Twenty-fifth Defendant
-and-

SAROON PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDAITON)
(ACN 010 633 548)
Twenty-sixth Defendant
-and-
WOODVILLE INDUSTRIAL PARK PTY LTD
(IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 008 037 018)
Twenty-seventh Defendant
-and-
AIRLIE BEACH PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 008 203 218)
Twenty-eighth Defendant
-and-
NAVICIO PTY LTD
(ACN 010 616 690)
Twenty-ninth…

Continue reading Elfic Ltd v Macks

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Elfic Ltd v Macks [2000] QSC 18
Case
[2000] QSC 18
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Elfic Ltd, a company in liquidation, was involved in proceedings against Macks, a company, to recover certain funds. The liquidator of Elfic Ltd sought court approval for a funding arrangement to enable the prosecution of the recovery proceedings. The dispute centred around whether the funding arrangement was champertous, whether the approval order should be set aside due to non-disclosure, whether the creditors should have been called to approve the arrangements, and whether the funder's capacity to control the proceedings warranted setting aside the orders. Additionally, there were allegations against the liquidator for not acting impartially and for acting with an improper motive.

The court was required to determine whether the funding arrangement was champertous, whether the order for approval should be set aside due to non-disclosure, whether the order should be set aside because creditors were not called on to approve the arrangements, and whether the orders should be set aside because of the funder’s capacity to control the proceedings. The court also needed to consider whether the conduct of the liquidator amounted to the tort or champerty in Queensland and public policy considerations in this regard.

The court found that the funding arrangement was not champertous and that there was no sufficient evidence of non-disclosure to warrant setting aside the approval order. The court held that there was no requirement for creditors to approve the arrangements and that the funder’s capacity to control the proceedings did not justify setting aside the orders. The allegations against the liquidator for not acting impartially and for acting with an improper motive were not substantiated. The court dismissed the action.

The court dismissed the action, finding no grounds for setting aside the approval order or removing the liquidator. The allegations against the liquidator were dismissed, and the funding arrangement was held not to be champertous. The court held that the liquidator's conduct did not amount to the tort or champerty in Queensland and did not contravene public policy.

Orders

Orders of the court

Action dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.