In the matter of Rosecell Pty Limited

Rosecell Pty Limited brought an application to set aside winding up orders that had been obtained against it. The petitioner, who had obtained the orders, had served documents at the registered office of the respondent, which was the address of the petitioning creditor. The application centred on whether the winding up orders should be set aside due to a fundamental irregularity in the proceedings, specifically whether the court had complied with the requirement to provide a party to the proceedings with an opportunity to be heard.

The court was required to determine whether the winding up orders were obtained through a fundamental irregularity, and if so, whether these orders should be set aside. The key legal issue was whether the service of documents at the registered office of the respondent, which was also the address of the petitioning creditor, complied with the procedural requirements of the law. The respondent argued that the irregularity in the service of documents deprived the court of jurisdiction, thus making the winding up orders invalid.

The court examined the procedural requirements for service of documents in winding up proceedings and determined that the service at the registered office of the respondent, which was also the address of the petitioning creditor, did not comply with the law. The court held that the irregularity in the service of documents deprived the respondent of its right to be heard, which is a fundamental aspect of procedural fairness. Consequently, the court found that the winding up orders were obtained through a fundamental irregularity and set them aside.

The court ordered that the winding up orders be set aside and remitted the matter to the original court for further proceedings, ensuring that the respondent was provided with proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.