Legal Research
Cases
Ide v Ide

Ide v Ide

Case [2004] NSWSC 751 17 August 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
50 ACSR 324

Supreme Court

CITATION: Ide v Ide [2004] NSWSC 751

HEARING DATE(S): 15/07/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 August 2004

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Young CJ in Eq

DECISION: No order made.

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS [195]- Receiver- Remuneration- Not ordinarily to include remuneration for time spent assisting police where one officer of the corporation shoots and kills another in receiver's presence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970, s 63

CASES CITED: Adams v Bank of New South Wales [1984] 1 NSWLR 285
Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Bristowe v Needham (1847) 2 Ph 190; 41 ER 914
Corwest Management Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (WA) (1987) 18 ATR 823
Malcolm v O'Callaghan (1837) 3 My & Cr 52; 40 ER 844
Marra Developments Ltd v B W Rofe P/L [1977] 2 NSWLR 616
Mirror Group Newspapers v Maxwell (No 2) [1998] 1 BCLC 638
Mirror Group v Maxwell [2001] BCC 488
Pit v Colmondeley (1754) 2 Ves Sen 565; 28 ER 360
Re Alexander McLean (1912) 14 GLR 561
Re Catlin (1854) 18 Beav 508; 52 ER 200
Re Independent Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) [2003] 1 BCLC 640
Re Medforce Healthcare Services Ltd [2001] 3 NZLR 145
Re Queensand Forests Ltd [1966] Qd R 180
Re Solfire Pty Ltd (No 2) [1999] 2 Qd R 182
Venetian Nominees Pty Ltd v Conlan (1998) 16 ACLC 1653
Viola v Anglo-American Cold Storage Co [1912] 2 Ch 305
Waldron v MG Securities (Australasia) Ltd [1979] ACLC 40-541

PARTIES :
Mervyn John Ide Snr (Plaintiff/Applicant)
Mervyn John Ide Jnr (Defendant)
Neil Geoffrey Singleton and David John Leigh (Receivers/Respondents)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5106/01

COUNSEL: M Boulton (Plaintiff/Applicant)
No appearance for defendant
S Golledge (S) (Receivers/Respondents)

SOLICITORS: McNamara & James (Plaintiff/Applicant)
The Argyle Partnership (Receivers/Respondents)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

YOUNG CJ in EQ

Tuesday 17 August 2004

5106/01 – MERVYN JOHN IDE (SNR) v MERVYN JOHN IDE (JNR)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application brought by the plaintiff’s notice of motion dated 15 June 2004 seeking that the receivers in this matter file and serve a detailed claim for remuneration from the date of appointment up to and including the finalisation of the receivership and final distribution.

2 The basal facts are undisputed. The parties to these proceedings, father and son, were partners in a grazing operation, carried on at Ulong near Coffs Harbour in New South Wales. On 9 November 2001 I ordered that the partnership business be dissolved as at 21 May 2001 and that Mr Neil Geoffrey Singleton be appointed receiver and manager of the partnership business. On 9 July 2002 Justice Barrett ordered that Mr John David Leigh be appointed joint receiver on the partnership business.

3 On 6 April 2004 Mr Leigh swore an affidavit verifying accounts on the receivership of the partnership business containing a statement of receipts and disbursements on behalf of the partnership. There is some dispute…

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.

Continue reading Ide v Ide

Details

AGLC: Ide v Ide [2004] NSWSC 751
Case: [2004] NSWSC 751
Decision Date: 17 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ide v Ide involved a dispute between the receiver of a corporation and the estate of a deceased officer of the corporation. The deceased officer had shot and killed another officer in the presence of the receiver. The dispute centred on whether the receiver was entitled to be reimbursed for the time spent assisting the police during the investigation of the shooting, which occurred in the presence of the receiver. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine the scope of the receiver's remuneration under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to decide whether the receiver's assistance to the police was part of their ordinary duties as a receiver or whether it fell outside the scope of their employment. The court considered the nature of the receiver's role and whether the assistance provided to the police was necessary for the performance of their duties.

The court held that the receiver was not ordinarily entitled to remuneration for the time spent assisting the police during the investigation of the shooting. The court found that the receiver's role did not include providing assistance to law enforcement agencies and that the assistance provided in this instance was not necessary for the performance of their duties as a receiver. The court emphasised that the receiver's role was to manage the corporation's affairs and to protect the interests of creditors, not to assist in criminal investigations. The court concluded that the remuneration of the receiver should not include any payment for time spent assisting the police in this matter.

The court ordered that the estate of the deceased officer was not liable to pay the receiver for the time spent assisting the police during the investigation of the shooting. The court's decision clarified the scope of a receiver's remuneration under the Corporations Act and provided guidance for future cases involving similar circumstances.

Orders