Hathway, in the matter of Stacey Apartments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Southern Cross Estate Developers Pty Ltd (deregistered)

Stacey Apartments Pty Ltd (in liquidation), the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Plaintiffs, applied for various orders against Southern Cross Estate Developers Pty Ltd (deregistered), the First Defendant, and others. The application was brought in the Federal Court of Australia, and sought relief in relation to the winding up of the First Defendant and its associated entities. The applicants sought to have the registration of the First Defendant reinstated, to have a deed of company arrangement set aside, for the First Defendant to be wound up, and for liquidators to be appointed to the First Defendant and its associated entities. The First Defendant, and other associated entities, opposed the application. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the First Defendant should be wound up and, if so, whether the deed of company arrangement should be set aside and the registration of the First Defendant reinstated. The court held that the First Defendant should be wound up. It found that the First Defendant was unable to pay its debts as they fell due and that there were other grounds to wind up the First Defendant. The court found that the deed of company arrangement was not in the best interests of creditors and members of the First Defendant and should be set aside. The court held that the registration of the First Defendant should be reinstated and that liquidators should be appointed to the First Defendant and its associated entities. The court also found that the First Defendant and its associated entities constituted a pooled group for the purposes of the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The First Defendant and others were ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding.