CITATION: Jankar v Dellmain & Ors [2009] NSWSC 766 HEARING DATE(S): 3 June 2009
JUDGMENT DATE :
4 September 2009JURISDICTION: Equity JUDGMENT OF: Slattery J at 1 DECISION: Orders:
(1) The third defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the interlocutory process and the proceedings.
(2) The third defendant pay the first defendant's costs of the interlocutory process and of the proceedings on an indemnity basis.CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - winding up - application for winding up by court - winding up conceded on the just and equitable basis under s 461(1)(k) Corporations Act 2001 - winding up would have been justified under s 461(1)(e) Corporations Act 2001 had it been fully contested - a winding up under s 461(1)(f) Corporations Act 2001 would also have been justified - third defendant engages in oppressive conduct - third defendant unreasonably causes the first defendant defend the proceedings - COSTS - an order that the third defendant pay the plaintiff's costs - an order that the third defendant indemnify the first defendant in respect of its defence costs LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001
Civil Procedure Act 2005CATEGORY: Principal judgment CASES CITED: Ali v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2008] NSWSC 183
Australian Securities Commission v Aust-Home Investments Limited (1993) 44 FCR 194
Australian Securities Commission v Multiple Sclerosis Society (Tas) (1993) 10 ACSR 489
Baillieu Knight Frank (NSW) v Ted Manny Real Estate Pty Limited (1992) 30 NSWLR 359
Booker v You Run the Business (2008) FCA 1672
Cassegrain & Anor v CTK Engineering Pty Limited & Anor [2005] NSWSC 495
Consolidated Byrnes Holdings Limited v Hardel Investments Pty Limited (2009) FCA 399
Degman Pty Limted (in liquidation) v Wright (1983) 2 NSWLR 354
Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Limited (1973 ) AC 360
Harrison v Schipp; Cameron v Schipp [2001] NSWCA 13
HSH Hotels (Australia) Limited v Multiplex Constructions Pty Limited [2004] NSWCA 302
Hypec Electronics Pty Limited (in liquidation) v Mead (2004) 61 NSWLR 169
In Re Wilcox; Venture Industries Pty Limited (No 2) (1996) 72 FCR 151
Johnny Ocean’s Restaurant v Page (2003) NSWSC 952
Kinsella v Russell Kinsella Pty Limited (1986) 10 ACLR 395
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 54
Morgan v 45 Flers Avenue Pty Limited (1986) 10 ACLR 692
NMFM Property Pty Limited v Citibank (No 2) (2001) 109 FCR 77
Ohn v Walton (1995) 36 NSWLR 77
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 93 CLR 72
Quinlan v Essex Hinge Co Limited [1996] 2 BCLC 417
Re Back 2 Bay 6 Pty Limited (1994) 12 ACSR 614
Re Fountain Selected Meats (1988) 81 ALR 397
Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex parte Re Kim Li Qin [1997] HCA 6; (1997) 143 ALR 1; (1997) 186 CLR 622
Re Struthers; Paci Pty Limted (In liquidation) (2005) 64 NSWLR 392
Ruhani v Director of Police (2005) 222 CLR 489
Shum Yip Properties Development Limited v Chatswood Investment & Development Co Pty Limited (2002) 40 ACSR 619PARTIES: J & M Jankar Pty Limited (Plaintiff)
Continue reading Jankar v Dellmain
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Jankar v Dellmain [2009] NSWSC 766
- Case
- [2009] NSWSC 766
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Jankar v Dellmain, the applicant, Jankar, sought an order for the winding up of a corporation, Dellmain, on the basis that it was just and equitable to do so, pursuant to section 461(1)(k) of the Corporations Act 2001. The corporation was owned by three defendants, the first and third of whom were the subject of the applicant's claim. The applicant alleged that the third defendant engaged in oppressive conduct and unreasonably caused the first defendant to defend the proceedings. The third defendant conceded that the winding up of the corporation was just and equitable. The court was required to determine whether a winding up order should be made and, if so, the basis on which it should be made. The court was also required to determine whether an order for costs should be made and, if so, the basis on which it should be made.
The court found that the winding up of the corporation was just and equitable and that it would have been justified on the basis that the corporation was unable to pay its debts. The court also found that the winding up of the corporation would have been justified on the basis that the conduct of the third defendant was oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to the applicant. The court found that the third defendant engaged in oppressive conduct by unreasonably causing the first defendant to defend the proceedings. The court held that the third defendant should indemnify the first defendant in respect of its defence costs and that the third defendant should pay the applicant's costs.
The court made an order that the corporation be wound up on the just and equitable basis. The court also made an order that the third defendant indemnify the first defendant in respect of its defence costs. The court further made an order that the third defendant pay the applicant's costs. The court held that the first defendant was not liable for any of the costs.
The court found that the winding up of the corporation was just and equitable and that it would have been justified on the basis that the corporation was unable to pay its debts. The court also found that the winding up of the corporation would have been justified on the basis that the conduct of the third defendant was oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to the applicant. The court found that the third defendant engaged in oppressive conduct by unreasonably causing the first defendant to defend the proceedings. The court held that the third defendant should indemnify the first defendant in respect of its defence costs and that the third defendant should pay the applicant's costs.
The court made an order that the corporation be wound up on the just and equitable basis. The court also made an order that the third defendant indemnify the first defendant in respect of its defence costs. The court further made an order that the third defendant pay the applicant's costs. The court held that the first defendant was not liable for any of the costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.