SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Kendell v Sweeney & Ors [2002] QSC 404
PARTIES:
DAVID WARD KENDELL (as Trustee of the WGK Trust)
(applicant)
v
PAUL DESMOND SWEENEY and TERRY GRANT van der VELDE (Liquidators)
(first respondents)
JENI KENDELL
(second respondent)
SUSAN DONE
(third respondent)
PENNY NELSON
(fourth respondent)FILE NO:
S 8347 of 2002
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
22 November 2002
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
15 November 2002
JUDGE:
Wilson J
ORDER:
1. That the application filed on 24 October 2002 (amended in accordance with the amended application filed by leave on 15 November 2002) be dismissed.
2. That the applicant pay the first respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:
CORPORATIONS – WINDING UP VOLUNTARILY – CONTRIBUTORIES – where company went into liquidation after members’ voluntary winding up – where applicant seeks a list of contributories pursuant to s 506(1)(c) Corporations Act 2001 – where all shares in the company are fully paid up – whether it is necessary to “adjust the rights of the contributories among themselves” within the meaning of s 515(b) Corporations Act 2001 – where the applicant wants to obtain a list of shareholders so he can join all necessary parties to the originating application – whether the liquidators should be ordered to provide a list of contributories in accordance with ss 506 and 478 Corporations Act 2001
PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – where applicant seeks orders for substituted service on three shareholders – where applicant has not tried to serve the shareholders in the usual way – where applicant proposes service be effected by sending copies of the filed documents to the liquidators – whether it is impracticable for applicant to serve documents in the way required by chapter 4 of the UCPR – whether the circumstances justify an order for
substituted serviceCorporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 478(1), s 478(1A), s 506(1)(c), s 515, s 516
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 26(2), r 116
Phoenix Oil and Transport Co Ltd [1958] 1 Ch 560
COUNSEL:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
J B Sweeney for the first respondentSOLICITORS:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Primrose Couper Cronin Rudkin for the first respondent
WILSON J: The applicant is the trustee of the WGK Trust. The Trust holds shares in Kendells (NSW) Pty Limited (“the company”).
The company is in liquidation. It is a members’ voluntary winding up.
By an originating application filed on 10 September 2002 the applicant seeks -
“declaration that on its proper construction the Settlement Deed dated 14 October 1998 between the Company and Australian Vineyard Estates Pty Ltd did not have the effect of writing off or otherwise disposing of the loan accounts of the Company’s shareholders”
and consequential orders.
This is an interlocutory application by which the applicant seeks –
(i) an order that the liquidators prepare a list of contributories pursuant to…
Continue reading Kendell v Sweeney
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Kendell v Sweeney [2002] QSC 404
- Case
- [2002] QSC 404
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the liquidators were not required to provide a list of the shareholders to the applicant. The court held that the applicant’s purpose in seeking the list was to join the shareholders as parties to the originating application. The court found that the liquidators were not required to assist the applicant in doing so, as there was no requirement to adjust the rights of the contributories among themselves. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that it was impracticable to serve the shareholders in the usual way, and that the circumstances did not justify an order for substituted service. The court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. That the application filed on 24 October 2002 (amended in accordance with the amended application filed by leave on 15 November 2002) be dismissed.
2. That the applicant pay the first respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis.
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.