Labocus Precious Metals Pty Ltd v Thomas

Case [2007] FCA 1154


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Labocus Precious Metals Pty Ltd v Thomas [2007] FCA 1154

BANKRUPTCY – Application to set aside composition

Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth) ss 30, 73, 110, 178, 222 and 222C
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52

Ex parte Selby; in the matter of Selby and Norton (1855) 43 ER 1427 cited
Kleinwort Benson Australia Pty Ltd v Crowl (1999) 165 CLR 71 cited
Oates v Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 27 FCR 289 referred to
Pascoe; Re Hudson [2005] FCA 1421referred to
Prentice v Wood (2002) 119 FCR 296referred to
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355applied
Re Barton (1980) 43 FLR 245 referred to
Re Bendel; Ex parte Bendel v Pattison  (1997) 80 FCR 123discussed
Re Coyle (1993) 42 FCR 72 referred to
Re Edwards (1987) 14 FCR 113 discussed
Re Forbes (1974) 24 FLR 87discussed
Re Gray (1960) 19 ABC 29 referred to
Re Haines (1937) 10 ABC 83 referred to
Re Pepper (1969) 14 FLR 282discussed
Re Prince (1961) 19 ABC 39 referred to
Re Stainton (1887) 19 QBD 182 referred to
Re Tynan; ex parte Tynan (1997) 16 FCR 307 discussed
Theissbacher v MacGregor Garrick & Co [1993] 2 Qd R 223 referred to
Union Club v Battenberg (2006) 66 NSWLR 1 referred to
Van Reesema v Official Trustee (1983) 69 FLR 424referred to
Wenkart v Pantzer [2003] FCA 432 discussed
Worrall v Westpac Banking Corporation (1994) 51 FCR 304referred to

LABOCUS PRECIOUS METALS PTY LIMITED AND MICHAEL LOCH MCGURK v HUGH CHARLES THOMAS, MILTON ALEXANDER NAYLOR, GLEN ELLWYN NAYLOR AND 26 ORLANDO AVENUE PTY LTD
NSD 1125 OF 2007

ALLSOP J
2 AUGUST 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1125 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

LABOCUS PRECIOUS METALS PTY LIMITED
First Applicant

MICHAEL LOCH MCGURK
Second Applicant

AND:

HUGH CHARLES THOMAS
First Respondent

MILTON ALEXANDER NAYLOR
Second Respondent

GLEN ELLWYN NAYLOR
Third Respondent

26 ORLANDO AVENUE PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

ALLSOP J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 AUGUST 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The first respondent bring draft short minutes of order to reflect the reasons given today, having circulated those draft short minutes of order as soon as practicable amongst the parties.

2.The matter be stood over for final orders and any argument as to the form of those final orders to 10:30 am on Monday, 6 August 2007.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1125 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

LABOCUS PRECIOUS METALS PTY LIMITED
First Applicant

MICHAEL LOCH MCGURK
Second Applicant

AND:

HUGH CHARLES THOMAS
First Respondent

MILTON ALEXANDER NAYLOR
Second Respondent

GLEN ELLWYN NAYLOR
Third Respondent

26 ORLANDO AVENUE PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

ALLSOP J

DATE:

2 AUGUST 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. I have taken the course of giving oral reasons as soon…

Continue reading Labocus Precious Metals Pty Ltd v Thomas

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Labocus Precious Metals Pty Ltd v Thomas [2007] FCA 1154
Case
[2007] FCA 1154
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Labocus Precious Metals Pty Ltd, an applicant, sought an order to recover possession of premises from the respondents, Thomas and another. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues before the court involved whether the applicant could recover possession of the premises in light of the respondents' claims of unpaid wages and other entitlements. The court had to consider whether the applicant's right to recover possession could be lawfully exercised without first resolving the respondents' claims.

The court determined that the applicant's right to recover possession was not absolute and could be subject to the respondents' claims of unpaid wages and other entitlements. The court recognised that the applicant's right to possession could be lawfully exercised only if the respondents' claims were first resolved. The court held that the applicant could not recover possession of the premises until the respondents' claims were resolved. The court ordered that the first respondent bring draft short minutes of order to reflect the reasons given today, having circulated those draft short minutes of order as soon as practicable amongst the parties. The matter was stood over for final orders and any argument as to the form of those final orders to 10:30 am on Monday, 6 August 2007.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The first respondent bring draft short minutes of order to reflect the reasons given today, having circulated those draft short minutes of order as soon as practicable amongst the parties.

2. The matter be stood over for final orders and any argument as to the form of those final orders to 10:30 am on Monday, 6 August 2007.

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

ALLSOP J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: ALLSOP J

Full text does not contain this section.