Legal Research
Cases
Newstart 225 Pty Limited v Condon

Newstart 225 Pty Limited v Condon

Link copied

Case Copied 27 June 2024 74 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Newstart 225 Pty Limited v Condon [2024] NSWSC 788
Hearing dates: 04 April 2024
Date of orders: 27 June 2024
Decision date: 27 June 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wright J
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal in respect of grounds 3 and 4 is refused.
(2) The summons is otherwise dismissed.
(3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs. [Note: This order was varied on 27 June 2024 to read: The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of these proceedings on the ordinary basis up to and including 14 December 2023 and thereafter on an indemnity basis.]

Catchwords:
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – text and context of Part 5.3A of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Corporations Act, s 443B(2) – whether “so much of … other amounts payable by the company … as is attributable to a period” misconstrued – no relevant misconstruction of s 443B(2) of the Corporations Act – appeal dismissed
CORPORATIONS – external administration – administrator under Part 5.3A – personal liability of administrator – use or occupation of leased premises by administrator – whether personally liable for damages by way of makegood costs and lost rent – administrator not liable

Legislation Cited:
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AB
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), Sch 4
Corporations Act 2001 (NSW), ss 419A, 437A, 437B, 435A(a)-(b), 435C(2)(c), 439A, 439C, 443A-443C, 443D
Corporate Law Reform Act 1992 (Cth), s 56
Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), ss 39-40
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), ss 16-75, 250-10, 255-1 and 255-5

Cases Cited:
Barker v The Queen (1983) 153 CLR 338; [1983] HCA 18
Be Financial Pty Ltd as Trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v Das [2012] NSWCA 164
Collector of Customs v AGFA-Gevaert Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 389
Corporations Act in De Vries v Rapid Metal Developments (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 100; (2011) 84 ACSR 261
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Clark (2003) 57 NSWLR 113; [2003] NSWCA 91
Ecosse Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Gee Dee Nominees Pty Ltd (2017) 261 CLR 644; [2017] HCA 12
Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640; [2014] HCA 7
Ferella v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2014] NSWCA 378
Gallop Investments Pty Ltd v Jones [2002] WASC 66
Hunyh v Swanson [1999] NSWSC 72
Larking v Great Western (Nepean) Gravel Ltd (1940) 64 CLR 221; [1940] HCA 37
Melbourne Aircraft Leasing (UK) Ltd v Algeri and Ors in their capacity as joint and several Trustees of the Project Volar Creditors’ Trust [2022] NSWSC 443
Molit (No.55) Pty Ltd v Lam Soon Australia Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) (No 2) [1996] FCA 659; (1996) 148 ALR 472
Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37
Ogdens Limited v. Weinberg (1906) 95 LT 567
Railway Commissioners for New South Wales v Orton (1922) 30 CLR 422; [1922] HCA 16
Re Mothercare…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Newstart 225 Pty Limited v Condon and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NSWSC 788
Decision Date: 27 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Newstart 225 Pty Limited versus Condon, the Federal Court was called to resolve a dispute involving statutory interpretation and the personal liability of an administrator under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The primary issue was whether a particular statutory phrase in section 443B(2) of the Corporations Act had been misconstrued and whether the administrator of the company, Condon, could be held personally liable for damages incurred due to the use or occupation of leased premises by the administrator.

The court examined the text and context of section 443B(2) and found no misconstruction in the statutory language. It held that the phrase "so much of … other amounts payable by the company … as is attributable to a period" did not support a finding that the administrator was personally liable for damages such as makegood costs and lost rent. The court determined that the statutory framework did not impose personal liability on the administrator for such damages arising from the use or occupation of leased premises.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal brought by Newstart 225 Pty Limited against Condon. The decision confirmed that the administrator of a company under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act is not personally liable for damages resulting from the use or occupation of leased premises by the administrator. The court's reasoning was grounded in a careful analysis of the statutory provisions and their context, ensuring that the interpretation aligned with the legislative intent.

Orders