NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT
CITATION:
Lollback v Brakepower Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1457
JURISDICTION:
Equity Division
Corporations List
FILE NUMBER(S):
2010/18159
HEARING DATE(S):
16/11/10, 17/11/10
JUDGMENT DATE:
17 December 2010
PARTIES:
Mark Lollback - Plaintiff
Brakepower Pty Ltd - First Defendant
David Anthony Ross as liquidator of Brakepower Pty Ltd - Second Defedant
JUDGMENT OF:
Barrett J
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Not Applicable
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
Not Applicable
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Not Applicable
COUNSEL:
Mr G D McDonald
Mr A W Smith - Defendants
SOLICITORS:
J T Law - Plaintiff
MSB Lawyers - Defendants
CATCHWORDS:
CORPORATIONS - winding up by the court - liquidators - liquidator's remuneration determined by a registrar of the court - application by sole contributory for review of the registrar's decision - review sought only as to decision that there should be no order as to costs - approach to review of exercise of registrar's discretion - no basis for intervention shown - CORPORATIONS - liquidators - inquiry into liquidator's conduct - whether court should order - various complaints about liquidator's conduct - no basis to order inquiry shown
LEGISLATION CITED:
Civil Procedure Act, s 98(1)(a), (b).
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 468A(8), 471A(1A), 473(3), 473(6), 482, 536
Supreme Court Act 1970, s 121(3)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rule 49.19
CATEGORY:
Principal judgment
CASES CITED:
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 ; [1936] HCA 40
Kennards Hire Pty Ltd v RMGA Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1387
Re SNL Group Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 797
Sellers; in the matter of Beckley Forge Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 523
State Debt Recovery Office v L and G Contracting Service Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1116
Tomko v Palasty (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 369; (2007) 71 NSWLR 61
Vero Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd v Ferretti Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 292 ; (2006) 57 ACSR 103
TEXTS CITED:
DECISION:
The plaintiff’s interlocutory process dated 16 July 2010 is dismissed with costs.
The application in paragraph 5 of the plaintiff’s amended originating process dated 16 July 2010 is dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT:
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST
BARRETT J
FRIDAY, 17 DECEMBER 2010
2010/18159MARK LOLLBACK v BRAKEPOWER PTY LTD & ANOR
JUDGMENT
Parties and claims
The plaintiff, Mr Lollback, seeks two orders against Mr Ross, the liquidator of Brakepower Pty Ltd, a company subject to winding up by the court under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by virtue of an order made by the Supreme Court of Victoria on 2 September 2009.
Mr Lollback is the sole director and contributory of Brakepower.
Mr Lollback’s first claim (advanced by interlocutory process dated 16 July 2010) is for a review of a determination of a registrar with respect to Mr Ross’s remuneration as liquidator of Brakepower. Towards the end of the hearing, however, Mr McDonald of counsel indicated that that application was limited to review of the registrar’s decision concerning the costs of the remuneration application determined by him (the registrar ordered that…
Continue reading Lollback v Brakepower Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lollback v Brakepower Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1457
- Case
- [2010] NSWSC 1457
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the review of the registrar's decision was warranted and whether there was a basis to order an inquiry into the liquidators' conduct. The court needed to determine if there was any error in the exercise of the registrar's discretion regarding the decision not to order costs and if there was sufficient evidence to support an inquiry into the liquidators' conduct. The court also had to consider the appropriate standard of review applicable to the registrar's decision.
The Federal Court found that the review of the registrar's decision was not justified. The court held that the registrar's decision not to order costs was within their discretion and there was no demonstrated error or basis for intervention. The court further determined that there was no evidence to support the need for an inquiry into the liquidators' conduct. The complaints made by Lollback did not provide a sufficient basis for the court to order such an inquiry. Consequently, the court dismissed Lollback's application for review and did not order an inquiry into the liquidators' conduct.
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.