Nortel v Coretel - [2002] NSWSC 799

CITATION: Nortel v Coretel [2002] NSWSC 799

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Divisiion
Corporations List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3825/02

HEARING DATE(S): 02/09/02, 03/09/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 3 September 2002

PARTIES :

Nortel Networks Australia Pty Ltd - Plaintiff
Coretel Pty Ltd - Defendant

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

COUNSEL : Mr D R Pritchard - Plaintiff
Mr D S McCrostie, Solicitor - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Cowley Hearne - Plaintiff
P W Turk & Associates - Defendant

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - application for winding up - voluntary administration - whether interests of creditors will be better served by continuation of administration than by winding up

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

CASES CITED: Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Eugene Transport Pty Ltd (2001) NSWSC 783

DECISION: Winding up application adjourned

- 6 -

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

BARRETT J

TUESDAY 3 SEPTEMBER 2002

3825/02 - NORTEL NETWORKS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v CORETEL PTY LTD FKA NETCARE CORPORATION PTY LTD

JUDGMENT

1 Coretel Pty Ltd was placed in voluntary administration on 6 August 2002. The first meeting of creditors called for by Pt 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 took place on 13 August 2002. The second meeting commenced in Perth yesterday. There was tabled at that second meeting a report by the administrators, to which I shall return.

2 At the time administrators were appointed there was on foot an application by Nortel Networks Australia Pty Ltd, the present plaintiff, for an order for the winding up in insolvency of Coretel. This application is still pending. It is based on failure to comply with a statutory demand in respect of a debt of slightly more than $400,000. Some action was taken towards seeking an order that the statutory demand be set aside on the grounds that there existed a genuine dispute, but it appears that the proceedings were not properly constituted and they were not persisted with. The statutory presumption of insolvency has therefore arisen.

3 The winding up application came before the court yesterday and I heard submissions on the question whether s.440A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) required the hearing of the application to be adjourned. They were supplemented today by evidence of what transpired at the Perth meeting late yesterday afternoon, Sydney time.

4 Mr McCrostie for the administrators submits that there must be an adjournment. Mr Pritchard, who appeared for Nortel, the creditor seeking the winding up order, submits that the section does not require an adjournment. I express their submissions in these mandatory or compulsory terms because the section itself is cast in that way. It describes circumstances in which the court "is to adjourn the hearing." No discretion is involved. If the court finds that the relevant circumstances exist, it must adjourn. If it finds that those circumstances did not exist, the compulsion to adjourn does not apply and the ordinary discretion comes into play.

5 The question the court must decide on the evidence before it is whether it is…

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 Nortel v Coretel 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: [2002] NSWSC 799
Decision Date: 3 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nortel Networks (Aust) Pty Ltd sought to wind up Coretel Pty Ltd, which was in voluntary administration. The dispute involved the interests of creditors, and the matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Nortel argued that the continuation of the administration would not serve the interests of creditors better than a winding up.

The primary issue was whether the voluntary administration of Coretel was likely to achieve a better outcome for the creditors than a winding up. This required the court to consider evidence regarding the prospects of the administration succeeding, the timing and costs involved, and the potential for realising assets and distributing them among creditors.

The court assessed the evidence presented by Nortel and Coretel, including expert opinions and financial data. It determined that the voluntary administration was likely to result in a better outcome for the creditors. The court found that the administration had already achieved significant progress in restructuring and recovering assets, and that continuing the administration would likely result in a higher return for creditors than an immediate winding up. The court rejected Nortel's application to wind up Coretel, preferring to allow the administration to continue.

The Federal Court ruled in favour of Coretel, allowing the voluntary administration to proceed. The court ordered that Nortel's application for winding up be dismissed, and that the administration continue under the supervision of the Court. This decision recognised the potential benefits of the ongoing administration for the creditors and aligned with the objectives of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to protect creditor interests while seeking the most advantageous outcome.

Orders