In the matter of Courtney House Trading Group Pty Ltd

[2017] NSWSC 1834

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	In the matter of Courtney House Trading Group Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1834
Hearing dates:	Monday, 4 December 2017
Date of orders:	04 December 2017
Decision date:	04 December 2017
Jurisdiction:	Equity - Corporations List
Before:	Brereton J
Decision:	Interlocutory process dismissed
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Kyle Lester Sheridan (plaintiff) Courtenay House Capital Trading Group Pty Ltd (first defendant) Courtenay House Pty Ltd (second defendant) John McInerney (third defendant) Said Jahani (fourth defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: KL Sheridan (in person) (plaintiff) VE Whittaker (first to fourth defendants)   Solicitors: Colin Biggers & Paisley Lawyers (first to fourth defendants)
File Number(s):	2017/151478

Judgment (EX TEMPORE)

1. Lord Sheridan has filed an interlocutory process on 23 November 2017, claiming the following relief:

a. Seeking an urgent motion of the court on 4, December, 2017 to order Grant Thornton Australia to immediately return the sum of $7.8 million ($7,800,000.00) to The Oceanic Sun group (TOSg) on the grounds this specific sum has been obtained improperly/unlawful after the court order issued by Australian Investments and Securities Commission (ASIC) had freezing orders granted by the court on 21 April, 2017 [plaintiff relies on in R (on the application of revenue customs prosecution office) v R and Lloyds Bank Plc; January, 2008]

b. Seeking an urgent motion of the court on 4, December, 2017 to order Grant Thornton Australia to return the trust property to the amount of $2.8 million ($2,800,000.00) no later than end of March 2018. On the grounds this is fair and conscionable time for liquidators to finalise any term deposits and or other matters

c. There has been ample time for liquidator to review plaintiff position and case to satisfy the plaintiffs position [Delays Defeat Equity]

d. The plaintiff relies on all previous affidavits and evidenced filed by Lord Kyle Lester, Sheridan (namely that it would be unconscionable and illegal for the court to take any other course because it is accepted by the parties (and court – 3, July Transcript) that the $7.8 million deposit made by plaintiff on the 24, April, 2017 has been obtained improperly/unlawful after freezing orders were in place on the 21, April, 2017 and furthermore damages (including penal breaches) continue to sound in law)

2. Although it has been pointed out previously that there is a requirement for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation, the interlocutory process does not contain an application for such leave; nonetheless, I shall treat the process as if it does contain such an application.

3. I have endeavoured to explain on previous occasions that it is impossible in the context of this liquidation to determine the rights of one creditor of the company separately and independently from those of all other creditors, at least all other creditors in the same class.

4. In the related proceedings which have been commenced by the liquidators seeking the Court's advice and directions, I have today made directions setting them down for hearing on 29 March and preparing the matter for that hearing. The class of creditors of which Lord Sheridan is a member is represented in those proceedings. Those proceedings will decide the respective rights, priorities and entitlements of the relevant classes of the unfortunate creditors of this corporate group. It is contrary to every principle upon which the liquidation of corporations proceeds to make orders as sought in the interlocutory process for the payment of a specific sum to a specific creditor when the fund against which that claim is made is a fund to which there are multiple claims, which the liquidators will have to resolve (with the benefit of the Court's advice and assistance), and cannot be resolved on a one-off application.

5. The Court orders that the interlocutory process filed 23 November 2017, including the implicit application for leave to proceed against the company in liquidation, be dismissed with costs.

**********

Decision last updated: 02 February 2018