Molit (No.55) Pty Ltd v Lam Soon Australia Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) & Anor [No.2]

In the Federal Court of Australia, Molit (No.55) Pty Ltd, an applicant, brought a claim against Lam Soon Australia Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) and Peter Ivan Macks, the administrator of the company, for damages caused by the removal of fixtures and fittings from leased premises. The applicant, Molit (No.55) Pty Ltd, sought an order for the Administrator to pay $92,900 for the damage caused during the removal of the fixtures and fittings from the premises between 31 December 1994 and 5 January 1995. The applicant argued that the Administrator was liable for the damage caused as he was acting as the agent of the company, which was a party to the lease. The Administrator, however, contended that he was not personally liable for the damages caused by the removal of the fixtures and fittings, as he was not a party to the lease.

The court needed to decide whether the applicant's claim for damages constituted a "debt" under the Corporations Law and if so, whether the Administrator was personally liable for the damages caused. The court considered the definition of a debt in the Corporations Law and whether a claim for damages for a failure to comply with a covenant in a lease to make good damage to the leased premises could be considered a debt. The court also considered the argument that the Administrator was not personally liable for the damages caused because he was acting as the agent of the company at the time.

The court held that the term "debt" in the Corporations Law should be used with its usual meaning, which does not include a claim for damages for a failure to comply with a covenant in a lease to make good damage caused to the leased premises. As such, the applicant's claim for damages did not constitute a debt under the Corporations Law. The court also found that the Administrator was not personally liable for the damages caused by the removal of the fixtures and fittings as he was acting as the agent of the company at the time. The claim of the applicant against the Administrator was therefore dismissed.

The court dismissed the claim of the applicant for the Administrator to pay $92,900 for the damage done or caused by the Administrator. The court did not find it necessary to determine whether the obligation under the lease to make good damage amounted to a debt, or if such debt would have been "for" one of the subject matters listed in the Corporations Law.