Reported Decision:
(2003) 45 ACSR 711
(2003) 21 ACLC 1354
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Expile Pty Ltd v Jabb's Excavations Pty Limited [2003] NSWCA 163 HEARING DATE(S): 29th May 2003 JUDGMENT DATE:
24 June 2003JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Handley JA at 2; Santow JA at 3 DECISION: (1) Appeal allowed; (2) Orders below set aside; (3) Appellant's costs both at trial and on appeal be paid out of the assets of the respondent; (4) Listed for mention before Santow JA on 27 June 2003 at 9.30 am. CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - Application to wind up company under s459P of the Corporations Act following statutory demand where no application to set aside on basis of genuine dispute as to claimed debt or offsetting claim - Resultant presumption of insolvency - Winding up - Insolvency - Rebuttal to presumption of insolvency - Onus - Borrowing capacity to meet current liabilities - Bank loans as non-current or current liabilities - Verification of assets - Independent accountants - Sufficiency of accounting records - Appointment of an Administrator LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act s95A; s440A; s459C; s459F; s459G; s459H; s459P; s459R; s459S CASES CITED: Ace Contractors & Staff Pty Ltd v Westgarth Development Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 728
Sandell v Porter (1966) 115 CLR 666
Switz Pty Ltd v Glowbind Pty Ltd (2000) 48 NSWLR 661PARTIES :
EXPILE PTY LTD (ACN 093 403 135) (Appellant)
JABB'S EXCAVATIONS PTY LIMITED (ACN 066 676 926) (Respondent)FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40212/03; 40217/03 COUNSEL: S D Epstein, SC (Appellant)
D H Murr, SC/ R W Tregenza (Respondent)SOLICITORS: Baron & Associates (Appellant)
Cadmus Lawyers (Respondent)
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): ED1887/02 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Barrett J
CA 40212/03
CA 40217/0324 JUNE 2003MEAGHER JA
HANDLEY JA
SANTOW JA
CORPORATIONS – Application to wind up company under s459P of the Corporations Act following statutory demand where no application to set aside on basis of genuine dispute as to claimed debt or offsetting claim – Resultant presumption of insolvency - Winding up – Insolvency - Rebuttal to presumption of insolvency – Onus - Borrowing capacity to meet current liabilities – Bank loans as non-current or current liabilities – Verification of assets – Independent accountants – Sufficiency of accounting records – Appointment of an Administrator
By an originating process the appellant claimed under s459P of the Corporations Act 2001 an order to secure the winding-up of the respondent in insolvency. The originating process was filed following non-compliance with a statutory demand served by the appellant on the respondent.
The statutory demand was not complied with. Nor was there any application to set it aside on the basis of genuine dispute as to the debt or offsetting claim pursuant to s459G of the Corporations Act.
As a result of the failure to comply with the statutory demand a presumption of insolvency arose that the respondent had the onus to rebut.
The appellant challenged…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Expile Pty Ltd v Jabb's Excavations 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2003] NSWCA 163
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the appellant had failed to rebut the presumption of insolvency. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the appellant had demonstrated that it had sufficient borrowing capacity to meet its current liabilities, and whether the primary judge had correctly characterised certain bank loans as either current or non-current liabilities. The court also considered the sufficiency of the appellant's accounting records and the role of independent accountants in verifying its assets.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence presented by the appellant. The court accepted that the appellant had demonstrated a substantial borrowing capacity with its bank, which was sufficient to cover its current liabilities. Furthermore, the court re-characterised certain bank loans as non-current liabilities, which had the effect of improving the appellant's liquidity position. The court also found that the appellant's accounting records, while not perfect, were sufficient to provide a reliable picture of its financial position, and that the evidence of independent accountants supported this conclusion.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the winding-up orders made by the primary judge, and ordered that the appellant's costs both at trial and on appeal be paid out of the assets of the respondent. The matter was then listed for mention before Santow JA.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal allowed; (2) Orders below set aside; (3) Appellant's costs both at trial and on appeal be paid out of the assets of the respondent; (4) Listed for mention before Santow JA on 27 June 2003 at 9.30 am.
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.