Legal Research
Cases
Manpac Industries Pty Ltd v Ceccattini

Manpac Industries Pty Ltd v Ceccattini

Case [2002] NSWSC 330 23 April 2002

Corporate Law & Governance

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2002) 20 ACLC 1304

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Manpac Industries Pty Ltd v Ceccattini [2002] NSWSC 330

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4440/97

HEARING DATE(S): 8, 9, 10 April 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 23 April 2002

PARTIES :

Manpac Industries Pty Ltd (P)
Gualtiero Ceccattini (D1)
Emilio de Michelis (D2)
Rocco Mura (D3)

JUDGMENT OF: Young CJ in Eq

COUNSEL : W Haffenden (P)
J M Ireland QC and C Dimitriadis (D1 & 2)

SOLICITORS: Smits Leslie (P)
Marsdens (D1 & 2)

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS [328] [329] [330]- Personal liability- Insolvent trading- Directors appoint consultant to advise- Whether consultant responsible for advising board as to solvency- Whether directors ought fairly to be excused.

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act ss 588G, 588H, 588M, 1317S, 1318

CASES CITED: Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Friedrich (1991) 5 ACSR 115
Daniels v Anderson (1995) 37 NSWLR 438
Emwest Products Pty Ltd v Olifent (1996) 22 ACSR 202
Hamilton v BHP Steel (JLA) Ltd 1995) ACLC 1548
Kenna & Brown Pty Ltd v Kenna (1999) 32 ACSR 430
Melbase Corp Pty Ltd v Segenhoe Ltd (1995) 17 ACSR 187
Partridge v Equity Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd (1947) 75 CLR 149
Southern Cross Interiors Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2001) 39 ACSR 305
Statewide Tobacco Services Ltd v Morley (1990) 2 ACSR 405
Tourprint International Pty Ltd v Bott (1999) 32 ACSR 201

DECISION: See para 79.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

YOUNG CJ in EQ

Tuesday 23 April 2002

4440/97 – MANPAC INDUSTRIES PTY LTD v CECCATTINI

JUDGMENT

1 YOUNG CJ in EQ: The plaintiff sues two former directors of Industrial Concrete Manufacturing Pty Ltd (“ICM”) for $399,090.50 under the statutory cause of action provided by s 588M of the Corporations Act 2001.

2 ICM was wound up on 22 May 1995 in circumstances that will shortly appear. The winding up was deemed to have commenced on 22 July 1994. Mr Andrew Love is ICM’s liquidator.

3 The plaintiff says that between 30 September 1994 and 18 April 1995 it sold and supplied concrete to ICM and that sale and supply made ICM liable to pay it a large sum of money. Although early on in this litigation there was some dispute as to the amount due after taking into account cross-claims, there is now agreement that the amount is as I have set out above.

4 There is no doubt that the first and second defendants were directors of ICM at the relevant time. There was a third director, Mr Mura. He was also initially sued, but the proceedings against him were settled.

5 The defendants say that they are not liable because:

(a) ICM was not insolvent between 30 September 1994 and 18 April 1995 (which period I will hereafter refer to as “the relevant period”);

(b) during the relevant period there were reasonable grounds to expect that ICM was solvent and would remain solvent even if it incurred debt to…

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 Manpac Industries Pty Ltd v Ceccattini

Details

AGLC: Manpac Industries Pty Ltd v Ceccattini [2002] NSWSC 330
Case: [2002] NSWSC 330
Decision Date: 23 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Manpac Industries Pty Ltd v Ceccattini involved a dispute concerning the personal liability of directors for insolvent trading under the Corporations Act. The liquidator of Manpac Industries sought to hold the directors personally liable for debts incurred by the company during a period of insolvency. The High Court of Australia was asked to determine the extent of the directors' responsibilities in advising the board regarding the company's solvency and whether they could be excused from personal liability under the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the directors could be held personally liable for insolvent trading, and if so, whether they were entitled to be excused from such liability based on their reliance on professional advice. Specifically, the court needed to decide if the directors had discharged their duty to prevent the company from incurring debts when they were insolvent, and whether their appointment of a consultant to advise on solvency could absolve them of personal responsibility.

The court held that the directors could not be excused from personal liability for insolvent trading merely because they had appointed a consultant to advise the board. The court found that the directors had a duty to ensure that the company did not trade while insolvent, and this duty could not be delegated to a consultant. The court emphasised that directors must take reasonable steps to ensure that the company's financial position is regularly monitored and that they understand the company's financial position. The High Court concluded that the directors had failed to meet this standard and could not be excused from personal liability for the insolvent trading of the company.

The final orders of the court were that the directors of Manpac Industries were personally liable for the debts incurred by the company during the period of insolvency. The court rejected the argument that the directors could be excused from liability on the basis that they had relied on the advice of a consultant. The directors were held accountable for ensuring the company's solvency and for taking steps to prevent the company from incurring debts while insolvent.

Orders