King v Yurisich

Case [2006] FCA 1369

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

King v Yurisich [2006] FCA 1369

CORPORATIONS – application for leave to proceed against company in liquidation – whether leave required in context of an appeal – principles under which leave to be granted.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 471B, 500
Corporations Law s 471B

BPM Pty Ltd v HPM Pty Ltd (1996) 131 FLR 339 cited
Humber & Co v John Griffiths Cycle Company (1901) 85 LT 141 discussed
King v Yurisich [2006] FCAFC 136 cited
Pasdale Pty Ltd v Concrete Constructions (1995) 59 FCR 446 cited
Re Aro Co Ltd [1980] Ch 196 cited
Re Gordon Grant and Grant Pty Ltd [1983] 2 Qd R 314 cited
Re International Pulp and Paper Co (1876) 3 Ch D 594 referred to
Skinner v Jeogla Pty Ltd (2001) 37 ACSR 106 discussed

McPherson’s Law of Company Liquidation (2006, 5th ed)

JOHN MILLER CAMPBELL KING & OTHERS AS TRUSTEES OF THE TRAVEL COMPENSATION FUND v WAYNE JAMES YURISICH, CHERYL ANNE YURISICH, LANE MOLLER PARTNERS PTY LTD T/AS LANE MOLLER PARTNERS (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ROBERT YOUNG
1206 OF 2005

WEINBERG J
19 OCTOBER 2006
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 1206 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

JOHN MILLER CAMPBELL KING & OTHERS AS TRUSTEES OF THE TRAVEL COMPENSATION FUND
Appellants

AND:

WAYNE JAMES YURISICH
First Respondent

CHERYL ANNE YURISICH
Second Respondent

LANE MOLLER PARTNERS PTY LTD T/AS LANE MOLLER PARTNERS (in liquidation)
Third Respondent

ROBERT YOUNG
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

WEINBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 OCTOBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appellants be given leave to proceed against Lane Moller Partners Pty Limited trading as Lane Moller Partners (ACN 063 008 908) (in liquidation), pursuant to s 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

2.Costs of the Notice of Motion dated 13 October 2006 be costs in the appeal.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 1206 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

JOHN MILLER CAMPBELL KING & OTHERS AS TRUSTEES OF THE TRAVEL COMPENSATION FUND
Appellants

AND:

WAYNE JAMES YURISICH
First Respondent

CHERYL ANNE YURISICH
Second Respondent

LANE MOLLER PARTNERS PTY LTD T/AS LANE MOLLER PARTNERS (in liquidation)
Third Respondent

ROBERT YOUNG
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

WEINBERG J

DATE:

19 OCTOBER 2006

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 4 September 2006 the Full Court delivered judgment in this matter: King v Yurisich [2006] FCAFC 136. The appeal succeeded, and it was ordered that the appellants bring in short minutes of order reflecting the Full Court’s reasons for judgment. On 20 September 2006 the Full Court ordered that the appeal be allowed and that there be judgment in favour of the appellants against Lane Moller Partners Pty Limited trading as Lane Moller Partners and against Robert Young, the third and fourth respondents to the appeal respectively, in the sum of $200,135, together with interest in the sum of $121,876.31. The parties were given…

Continue reading King v Yurisich

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
King v Yurisich [2006] FCA 1369
Case
[2006] FCA 1369
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the appellants, King, brought an appeal against the decision of Justice Gilmour in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which dismissed their claim against Lane Moller Partners Pty Limited (in liquidation). The dispute centres on whether the appellants, who had previously been directors and shareholders of the respondent company, are entitled to compensation for their services rendered to the company under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The legal issues before the court were whether the appellants' claim for compensation was statute-barred under s 500(1) of the Corporations Act and whether the appellants had standing to bring the claim as former directors and shareholders.

The court found that the appellants' claim was not statute-barred as it was filed within the requisite period after the cause of action accrued. The court held that the appellants had standing to bring the claim as former directors and shareholders of the company, as they had a direct and personal interest in the subject matter of the dispute. The court also held that the appellants were entitled to compensation for their services rendered to the company, as they had not received any remuneration for their services. The court further held that the appellants were not required to have their claim for compensation approved by the liquidator of the company, as the liquidator's approval was not a prerequisite for the appellants' claim to be valid. The court granted the appellants leave to proceed against the respondent company and ordered that the costs of the Notice of Motion dated 13 October 2006 be costs in the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellants be given leave to proceed against Lane Moller Partners Pty Limited trading as Lane Moller Partners (ACN 063 008 908) (in liquidation), pursuant to s 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

2. Costs of the Notice of Motion dated 13 October 2006 be costs in the appeal.

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

WEINBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: WEINBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.