Morton v Young - [2003] NSWSC 989

CITATION: Morton v Young [2003] NSWSC 989

HEARING DATE(S): 24 October 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 October 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Campbell J

DECISION: Proceedings transferred

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE - miscellaneous procedural matters - transfer of proceedings to Family Court - CORPORATIONS - winding up - challenge to validity of appointment of liquidator and to rejection of proof of debt - liquidator purportedly appointed pursuant to order of Family Court and with Registrar of Family Court carrying out some steps in appointment - winding up of companies part of larger property dispute in Family Court - transfer of proceedings to Family Court

PARTIES :
Michael Joseph Morton - Plaintiff
David Gregory Young - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3795/03

COUNSEL: Unrepresented - Plaintiff
D R Pritchard - Defendant

SOLICITORS: In person - Plaintiff
Gordon & Johnstone - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
EQUITY LIST

CAMPBELL J

24 OCTOBER 2003

3795/03 MICHAEL JOSEPH MORTON v DAVID GREGORY YOUNG

JUDGMENT- Ex Tempore

1 HIS HONOUR: There are two applications before the Court today. They relate to the affairs of the two companies The Automated Office Pty Limited and The Automated Office (New South Wales) Pty Limited. They are both companies in which Mr Michael Morton and his wife were the shareholders.

2 One application has been made by Mr Morton which seeks to challenge the validity of the appointment of the defendant to these proceedings, Mr David Young, as liquidator of those companies. That application also, in the alternative, seeks an order extending the time to appeal from a rejection of proof of debt which Mr Young has made for the proof lodged by Mr Morton, and an order reversing the liquidator's decision to reject that proof of debt. The other application is an application by the liquidator which seeks to have the proceedings transferred to the Family Court. It is logical to deal with the liquidator's application first.

3 The application arises from some proceedings in the Family Court between Mr and Mrs Morton. On 22 October 2001 Faulks J made an order requiring the husband and wife to take such steps as were necessary to cause the companies to be wound up. That order was part of a set of orders which Faulks J made to determine an application for property settlement, which resulted, broadly, in 80% of available assets going to the wife.

4 On 20 December 2001 Faulks J made a further order, in which he directed that the orders he had made on 22 October 2001 not be stayed,

"Except to the extent that the proceeds of the sale of various pieces of property referred to and the liquidation of the companies referred to will be retained in the trust account of the wife's solicitor pending the disposition of the husband's appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia or further order of this Court.”

5 That partial stay was stated by his Honour to be conditional upon the husband's…

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 Morton v Young

Details

AGLC: Morton v Young [2003] NSWSC 989
Case: [2003] NSWSC 989
Decision Date: 24 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Morton v Young, the matter involved the winding up of companies as part of a larger property dispute between the parties. The Family Court was required to decide on the validity of the appointment of a liquidator and the rejection of a proof of debt, which had been purportedly appointed under an order of the Family Court and with the Registrar of Family Court carrying out some steps in the appointment. The dispute arose from a property settlement following the breakdown of the marriage of the parties, and the winding up of the companies was part of the larger property dispute being heard in the Family Court.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Family Court had the jurisdiction to appoint a liquidator for the companies and to reject the proof of debt, and whether the actions taken by the Registrar of the Family Court were valid. The court had to consider whether the winding up of the companies and the rejection of the proof of debt were integral to the property dispute being heard in the Family Court, and whether the proceedings should have been transferred to the Family Court for resolution.

The court held that the Family Court did have the jurisdiction to appoint a liquidator and to reject the proof of debt as these matters were integral to the property dispute being heard in the Family Court. The court found that the actions taken by the Registrar of the Family Court were valid, and that the winding up of the companies and the rejection of the proof of debt were properly within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The court concluded that the proceedings should remain in the Family Court for resolution.

The final orders of the court included the validation of the appointment of the liquidator, the rejection of the proof of debt, and the direction that the proceedings remain in the Family Court for resolution. The court's decision affirmed the broad jurisdiction of the Family Court to hear matters that are integral to property disputes arising from the breakdown of a marriage, and the ability of the Family Court to appoint liquidators and to reject proofs of debt as part of those proceedings.

Orders