Florgale Uniforms Pty Ltd v Orders (No 1) - [2000] VSC 427

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION	Not Restricted
COMMERCIAL LIST

No. 2000 of 2000

FLORGALE UNIFORMS PTY LTD (ACN 004 233 167) (Receiver and Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation) and OTHERS	Plaintiffs
v
MALCOLM JOHN ORDERS	First Defendant
and
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED (ACN 004 044 937)	Second Defendant
and NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED (ACN 004 044 937)	Plaintiff by Counterclaim
and GROUP TEXTILE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 005 970 178) & ORS	Defendants to Counterclaim

---

JUDGE:	Warren J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 September 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 October 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Florgale Uniforms Pty Ltd & Ors v Orders & Ors (No. 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 427

---

Corporations Law, s.477(6) – leave to pursue proceedings on behalf of companies in liquidation – whether a serious question to be tried – Receiver - duties owed by a receiver – whether duties arise as a result of the receivership upon lender – Agency – whether a receiver is the agent of the appointor.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the 4^th to 10^th Plaintiffs	Mr P. Collinson	O'Donnell Frampton Salzano
For the Defendants	Mr I.R. Jones	Russell Kennedy
For the Liquidator of the 1^st to 3^rd Plaintiffs	Mr R.S. Randall	Lewis Hutchinson

HER HONOUR:

The fourth to tenth plaintiffs seek leave pursuant to s.477(6), alternatively s.471A(1) of the Corporations Law retrospectively for leave to pursue these proceedings on behalf of three companies that are in liquidation.

The proceeding was commenced on 7 January 2000 in the name of ten plaintiffs by O'Donnell Frampton Salzano, Solicitors. The first three plaintiffs were the first plaintiff, Florgale Uniforms Pty Ltd ("Florgale Uniforms"), the second plaintiff Florgale Uniforms (NSW) Pty Ltd ("Florgale Uniforms NSW") and the third plaintiff Professional Uniforms Pty Ltd ("Professional Uniforms") were placed in liquidation on 25 November 1998. The fourth plaintiff Group Textile Enterprises Pty Ltd ("Group Textile"), the fifth plaintiff Thurston Nominees Pty Ltd ("Thurston Nominees") and the remaining plaintiffs, John William Burnes, Collette Frances Burnes, David Robert Burnes, Constance Mary Ryan and Elizabeth Emma Burnes were the providers of various securities and guarantees in favour of the three plaintiff companies now in liquidation. The proceedings were brought against the first defendant Malcolm John Orders as the receiver appointed to the plaintiff companies and the second defendant, National Australia Bank Limited who appointed the receiver.

Florgale Uniforms, Florgale Uniforms (NSW) and Professional Uniforms previously formed the "Florgale Group". The group was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling uniforms, business wear, sporting apparel and health care apparel and linen. In about January 1989 the Bank of New Zealand ("BNZ") granted financial facilities and accommodation to Florgale Uniforms. The facilities provided by BNZ were secured by debenture charges registered over each of the assets and undertakings of Florgale Uniforms, Florgale Uniforms (NSW), Professional Uniforms, Group Textile and Thurston Nominees in favour of BNZ on 30 January 1989 together with guarantees. Personal guarantees were provided…

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 Florgale Uniforms Pty Ltd v Orders (No 1) 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: [2000] VSC 427
Decision Date: 20 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Florgale Uniforms Pty Ltd, a company in liquidation, sought leave to pursue proceedings against Orders. The case before the court involved a dispute regarding the ability of a company in liquidation to pursue legal action on behalf of the companies in liquidation and the duties of a receiver in such circumstances. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was a serious question to be tried in relation to the leave sought by Florgale Uniforms Pty Ltd. Additionally, the court needed to determine the duties owed by a receiver to the lender and whether these duties arose solely due to the receivership. Furthermore, the court had to decide if a receiver is the agent of the party that appointed them.

The court held that a serious question to be tried existed for the purposes of section 477(6) of the Corporations Act 2001. It found that the leave application satisfied the criteria, as it was necessary for the fair and efficient resolution of the proceedings. Regarding the duties of the receiver, the court determined that the receiver owed duties to the lender and that these duties arose from the receivership itself. The court also ruled that a receiver is indeed the agent of the party that appointed them, which has implications for the scope of their duties and responsibilities.

The court granted leave for Florgale Uniforms Pty Ltd to pursue the proceedings on behalf of the companies in liquidation, recognising the importance of addressing the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and the need for a fair and efficient resolution of the matter.

Orders