LINDEBOOM -v- ACEWAY ASSET PTY LTD (IN LIQ) [1999] WASC 168

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASC 168
Case No:	COR:216/1999	Heard:	7 SEPTEMBER 1999
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	14/09/99
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	JOHANNA ARNOLDA LINDEBOOM ACEWAY ASSET PTY LTD (IN LIQ) (ACN 078 945 977)
Catchwords:	Corporations law Application for extension of time to lodge notice of change Winding up commenced No new point of principle
Legislation:	Corporations Law, s 266(4)
Case References:	Ashburton Estates Pty Ltd [1983] Ch 110 Commercial Banking Co of Sydney Ltd v George Hudson Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1973) 131 CLR 605 Douglas-Brown v Standard Chartered Finance Ltd (1990) 8 ACLC 993 J J Leonard Properties Pty Ltd v Leonard (WA) Pty Ltd (No 2) (1988) 6 ACLC 247 Morris v Woodings (1997) 25 ACSR 636 Bloodstock Air Services of Australia Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Roadrunner Equipment Pty Ltd (1985) 3 ACLC 735 Campbell Finance v Vivstan Packaging (Aust) Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1996) 14 ACLC 1,686 Re Lloyd Anthony Furniture Pty Ltd (1996) 14 ACLC 540 Rynmarc Pty Ltd v Classic Ergonomic Chairs Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACLC 1,038 Sanwa Australia Finance Limited v Ground Breakers Pty Ltd (In Liq) [1991] 2 Qd R 456 Re Sandawell Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1991) 4 ACSR 478 Re Wilson Tyres Pty Ltd (1992) 7 ACSR 318

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : LINDEBOOM -v- ACEWAY ASSET PTY LTD (IN LIQ) [1999] WASC 168 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 7 SEPTEMBER 1999 DELIVERED : 14 SEPTEMBER 1999 FILE NO/S : COR 216 of 1999 MATTER : Section 266(4) of the Corporations Law of Western Australia BETWEEN : JOHANNA ARNOLDA LINDEBOOM

Applicant

AND

ACEWAY ASSET PTY LTD (IN LIQ) (ACN 078 945 977)

Respondent

Catchwords:

Corporations law - Application for extension of time to lodge notice of change - Winding up commenced - No new point of principle

Legislation:

Corporations Law, s 266(4)

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr K L Christensen

Respondent : Mr A Chai

Solicitors:

Applicant : Wilson & Atkinson

Respondent : Blake Dawson Waldron

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Ashburton Estates Pty Ltd [1983] Ch 110
Commercial Banking Co of Sydney Ltd v George Hudson Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1973) 131 CLR 605
Douglas-Brown v Standard Chartered Finance Ltd (1990) 8 ACLC 993
J J Leonard Properties Pty Ltd v Leonard (WA) Pty Ltd (No 2) (1988) 6 ACLC 247
Morris v Woodings (1997) 25 ACSR 636

Case(s) also cited:

Bloodstock Air Services of Australia Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Roadrunner Equipment Pty Ltd (1985) 3 ACLC 735
Campbell Finance v Vivstan Packaging (Aust) Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1996) 14 ACLC 1,686
Re Lloyd Anthony Furniture Pty Ltd (1996) 14 ACLC 540
Rynmarc Pty Ltd v Classic Ergonomic Chairs Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACLC 1,038
Sanwa Australia Finance Limited v Ground Breakers Pty Ltd (In…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lindeboom v ACEWAY Asset Pty Ltd (in Liq)

Details

AGLC: Lindeboom v ACEWAY Asset Pty Ltd (in Liq) [1999] WASC 168
Case: [1999] WASC 168
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Johanna Arnolda Lindeboom applied for an extension of time to lodge a notice of change over the assets of the respondent, ACEWAY Asset Pty Ltd, pursuant to s 266(4) of the Corporations Law. The Court was required to determine whether it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to extend the time for lodging the notice, considering the factors outlined in the legislation and relevant case law. The Court examined the circumstances of the case, including the timing of the application, the effect on creditors, and whether the applicant's delay was due to inadvertence or some other sufficient cause. The Court concluded that while the applicant's delay might have been inadvertent, it was not sufficient to justify an extension of time due to the commencement of winding up and the potential prejudice to other creditors. The application was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs, including any reserved costs.

Orders