McVeigh v Merlo - [2004] VSC 107

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST

No. 6681 of 2003

IN THE MATTER OF REMMINGTON GROUP PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 069 635 463

DEAN ROYSTON McVEIGH and PETER JOHN MORRIS	Plaintiffs
V
FEDERICO ANTONIO MERLO and ANNARITA MERLO	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Hansen J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 and 23 September 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 April 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	McVeigh v Merlo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 107

---

CORPORATIONS – Administration – Whether appointment valid – Corporations Act 2001 s 447A and s 1322(4)(a)

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr T J North SC and Mr M J Galvin	Deacons
For the First Defendant	Mr G J Parncutt	Comlaw
For the Second Defendant	Mr S J Maiden	Mantello Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

This is another case in which orders are sought to cure a defect in the appointment of administrators, who are now the liquidators of the subject company, arising from the fact that their appointment as administrators was resolved upon by a sole director when the articles of association required a quorum of two directors. The curative orders are sought under s 447A and s 1322 of the Corporations Act 2001 ("the Act").

The liquidators are Dean Royston McVeigh and Peter John Morris. They carry on practice as registered liquidators under the name Foremans, McVeigh from premises at Sandringham in Victoria, and Morris from premises at Cairns in Queensland. They were appointed as administrators on 4 April 2003 and become liquidators on 8 May 2003 when the creditors resolved that the company be wound up.

The defendants are Federico Merlo and Annarita Merlo. Federico is sued as being an appropriate contender against the relief sought by the liquidators. His position as such derives from his opposition to the endeavours of the liquidators to obtain books and records of the company and take possession of the property at Buffalo River Road referred to below, and from a claim that he had been appointed trustee of the Merlo Family Trust by a deed of appointment of substitute trustee signed on 4 February 2003[1]. Federico accepted the role of contender with alacrity, as demonstrated by the endeavour with which his lawyers opposed the application. Annarita was represented by counsel but only in relation to her giving evidence; he did not make submissions.
[1]See the affidavit of Fiona Murray affirmed on 15 December 2003 and filed in proceeding 5920 of 2003 referring to an affidavit of Federico sworn in that proceeding.

The subject company is Remmington Group Pty Ltd ("Remmington" or "the company"), which was registered in Victoria on 30 May 1985. When Remmington was registered, the law required that a proprietary company have two directors. Articles of association have been produced by the solicitor for the first defendant[2], which the liquidators accept, at least for the purpose of this case, were the articles in force at the time of their appointment. Articles 73…

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 McVeigh v Merlo

Details

AGLC: McVeigh v Merlo [2004] VSC 107
Case: [2004] VSC 107
Decision Date: 7 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of McVeigh v Merlo involved a dispute over the validity of an appointment of a company director. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, McVeigh, challenged the appointment of the defendant, Merlo, as a director of a company, contending that the appointment did not comply with the requirements of the Corporations Act 2001. The central legal issues that the court had to address were whether the appointment process followed the statutory provisions and whether the appointment was valid under the law.

The court analysed the relevant sections of the Corporations Act, specifically s 447A and s 1322(4)(a), to determine the requirements for a valid director appointment. The plaintiff argued that the appointment did not meet the procedural requirements as stipulated in the Act, while the defendant maintained that the appointment was valid despite any procedural shortcomings. The court considered whether the failure to strictly adhere to the statutory procedures could be overlooked if the company had otherwise conducted itself in accordance with the law and if the appointment had not prejudiced the company or its creditors. After careful examination of the evidence and legal principles, the court concluded that the appointment was valid, as there was no evidence of prejudice to the company or its creditors, and the company had substantially complied with the legislative requirements.

The court found in favour of the defendant, Merlo, and ruled that the appointment was valid. The plaintiff's challenge to the appointment was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the substantial compliance with the statutory requirements and the absence of prejudice to the company or its creditors. The court's ruling upheld the validity of the director's appointment, emphasising the importance of procedural compliance while also considering the overall conduct of the company in relation to the appointment. The final order of the court was that the plaintiff's challenge to the appointment was dismissed, and the appointment of the defendant as a director was upheld as valid.

Orders