Elfic Ltd v Macks

Case [2001] QCA 219


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Elfic Ltd  & Ors v Macks & Ors [2001] QCA 219
PARTIES:

ELFIC LIMITED (ACN 007 606 206)
(first plaintiff/first appellant)

LENSWORTH PROPERTIES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 007 520 649)

(second plaintiff/second appellant)

GLENMORE PARK ESTATE LIMITED
(ACN 007 533 888)
(third plaintiff/third appellant)

FOSTER’S BREWING GROUP LIMITED
(ACN 007 620 886)
(fourth plaintiff/fourth appellant)
KINGLINGSTON PTY LTD
(ACN 068 499 874)
(fifth plaintiff/fifth appellant)
CALOUNDRA DOWNS PTY LTD
(ACN 068 356 525)
(sixth plaintiff/sixth appellant)
CABOOLTURE WATERS PTY LTD
(ACN 068 499 810)
(seventh plaintiff/seventh appellant)
MANGO HILL DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD
(ACN 068 244 762)

(eighth plaintiff/eighth appellant)
JOHN FRANCIS O’GRADY
(ninth plaintiff/ninth appellant)
JOHN DANIEL CROSBY
(tenth plaintiff/tenth appellant)

v
PETER IVAN MACKS

(first defendant/first respondent)
EMANUEL MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 007 840 913)
(second defendant/second respondent)
SEGACIOUS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 748 544)
(third defendant/third respondent)
MEKA SECURITIES PTY LTD (IN LIQUDATION)
(ACN 007 724 629)
(fourth defendant/fourth respondent)
COFORDO 251 PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 683 584)
(fifth defendant/fifth respondent)

GRANGEVILLE PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 008 104 854)
(sixth defendant/sixth respondent)
EMANUEL (NO. 14) PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 008 080 206)
(seventh defendant/seventh respondent)
P.B.R.S. PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 007 799 546)
(eighth defendant/eighth respondent)
PATERSON & CO PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 007 679 763)
(ninth defendant/ninth respondent)
GIUSEPPE NOMINEES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 007 771 486)
(tenth defendant/tenth respondent)
LONSDALE STAGE 2 PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 007 812 928)
(eleventh defendant/eleventh respondent)
EMANUEL PROPERTIES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 007 740 123)
(twelfth defendant/twelfth respondent)
EMANUEL (NO. 4) PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 008 036 995)
(thirteenth defendant/thirteenth respondent)
EMANUEL (RUNDLE MALL) PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 007 983 851)
(fourteenth defendant/fourteenth respondent)
VILLA-CAIRNS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 633 459)
(fifteenth defendant/fifteenth respondent)
ADDSTONE PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 764 977)
(sixteenth defendant/sixteenth respondent)
ANTLIA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 688 776)
(seventeenth defendant/seventeenth respondent)
CENTAURUS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 688 767)
(eighteenth defendant/eighteenth respondent)
CLOUDLAND INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 319 730)
(nineteenth defendant/nineteenth respondent)
COFORDO 260 PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 685 775)
(twentieth defendant/twentieth respondent)

DERWENT WATER PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 688 721)
(twenty-first defendant/twenty-first respondent)
EMANUEL (NO. 7) PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 008 053 352)
(twenty-second defendant/twenty-second respondent)
LASCIVIOUS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 749 032)
(twenty-third defendant/twenty-third respondent)
LEOMINOR PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 688 758)
(twenty-fourth defendant/twenty-fourth respondent)
LIVILLA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 748 571)
(twenty-fifth defendant/twenty-fifth respondent)
SAROON PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 633 548)
(twenty-sixth defendant/twenty-sixth respondent)
WOODVILLE INDUSTRIAL PARK PTY LTD
(IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 008 037 018)
(twenty-seventh defendant/twenty-seventh respondent)
AIRLIE BEACH PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 008 203 218)
(twenty-eighth defendant/twenty-eighth respondent)

NAVICIO PTY LTD

(ACN 010 616 690)
(twenty-ninth defendant/twenty-ninth respondent)
AIRLIE BAY DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
(IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 010 177 232)
(thirtieth defendant/thirtieth respondent)
ELIZABETH HOUSE PTY LTD (IN…

Continue reading Elfic Ltd v Macks

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Elfic Ltd v Macks [2001] QCA 219
Case
[2001] QCA 219
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Elfic Ltd v Macks involves the liquidator of two companies in liquidation entering into an arrangement with a third party to fund litigation on behalf of the companies. The liquidator sought to enforce the arrangement against the third party, which led to a dispute over whether the arrangement constituted maintenance or champerty and whether it was contrary to public policy. The court was required to decide whether the arrangement was permissible under section 477(2)(c) of the Corporations Law, which authorises certain dispositions of property in the context of winding up. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the liquidator acted in good faith and in the best interests of the creditors as a whole, and whether there was an error in failing to order the removal of the liquidator.

The court found that the arrangement did not involve maintenance or champerty as it did not provide for the third party to benefit from the proceeds of the litigation. The court also held that the arrangement did not constitute an abuse of process as the liquidator acted in good faith and in the best interests of the creditors as a whole. The court further found that the arrangement was permissible under section 477(2)(c) of the Corporations Law as it involved a disposition of property in the context of winding up. The court rejected the argument that the arrangement should be set aside due to the non-disclosure of material facts in an ex parte application, holding that the obligations of a party making such an application were not breached.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that costs be assessed. The liquidator's actions were found to be in the best interests of the creditors as a whole, and the arrangement was not contrary to public policy. The court found that the arrangement did not involve maintenance or champerty, and that it was permissible under section 477(2)(c) of the Corporations Law. The court also rejected the argument that the arrangement should be set aside due to the non-disclosure of material facts in an ex parte application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed

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.