Maclag (No 11) Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Burns Family Trust and Anor v Chantay Too Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Chantay Trust
Case
•
[2013] QSC 200
•7 August 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Maclag (No 11) Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Burns Family Trust and Anor v Chantay Too Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Chantay Trust [2013] QSC 200
[2013] QSC 200
7 August 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiffs, Maclag (No 11) Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Burns Family Trust and another, sought a declaration that certain expenses incurred by the receivers of a company, Chantay Too Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Chantay Trust, could not be paid out of the partners' funds. The plaintiffs contended that the receivers had failed to pay a distribution on time and, as a result, any costs incurred in relation to this matter should not be met by the partners. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the orders sought by the second plaintiff were warranted, given that no decision had been made by the receivers to pay any amount of the nature described by the plaintiff. The court had to consider the terms of the orders already in place which established a regime for invoicable, payment and assessment of the receivers' costs and expenses. The court needed to determine whether the second plaintiff's application would effectively alter these established orders.
The court found that the orders sought by the second plaintiff were not warranted. It held that no decision had been made by the receivers to pay any amount of the nature described by the plaintiff. Consequently, the court dismissed the application. The court held that the orders already in place provided an adequate framework for the management of the receivers' costs and expenses, and any further orders sought by the second plaintiff would be unnecessary and potentially disruptive to the established regime.
The court dismissed the application and made no further orders. The existing orders regarding the invoicable, payment and assessment of the receivers' costs and expenses remained in effect.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the orders sought by the second plaintiff were warranted, given that no decision had been made by the receivers to pay any amount of the nature described by the plaintiff. The court had to consider the terms of the orders already in place which established a regime for invoicable, payment and assessment of the receivers' costs and expenses. The court needed to determine whether the second plaintiff's application would effectively alter these established orders.
The court found that the orders sought by the second plaintiff were not warranted. It held that no decision had been made by the receivers to pay any amount of the nature described by the plaintiff. Consequently, the court dismissed the application. The court held that the orders already in place provided an adequate framework for the management of the receivers' costs and expenses, and any further orders sought by the second plaintiff would be unnecessary and potentially disruptive to the established regime.
The court dismissed the application and made no further orders. The existing orders regarding the invoicable, payment and assessment of the receivers' costs and expenses remained in effect.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Corporate Law & Governance
Legal Concepts
-
Receivers
-
Remuneration and Expenses
-
Declaration
-
Distribution
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0