Legal Research
Cases
Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd

Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 14 February 2007 44 min read

Contents

On this page

Reported Decision:
61 ACSR 246

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd [2007] NSWSC 69

HEARING DATE(S): 08/02/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
14 February 2007

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Corporations List

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

DECISION: Applications by prospective examinees for leave to be heard without becoming parties dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - winding up - special purpose liquidator appointed to consider whether viable causes of action arose from particular events - application by special purpose liquidator for issue of examination summonses - application by prospective examinees for leave to be heard on hearing of liquidator's application - whether liquidator's ability to pursue potential proceedings despite time bars may be preserved by agreements not to rely on such bars - particular bar created by s.588FF(3) of Corporations Act - where extended period fixed within three year period - whether court may order further extension

LEGISLATION CITED: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, s.19
Civil Procedure Act 2005, s.3(1)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Part 5.9, ss.1337B(2), 588FB(1), 588FF(1), 588FF(3), 596A, 596B, 596C(1), 596C(2),
Fair Trading Act 1987, ss.42, 68(2)
Limitation Act 1969, s.68A
Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999, rules 2.13(1), 11.3(1), 11.4, 11.5(2)
Trade Practices Act, s.82(2)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, s.36.16(3)

CASES CITED: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Ltd (2004) 52 ACSR 103
BP Australia Ltd v Brown (2003) 58 NSWLR 322
Davies v Chicago Boot Co Ltd (2006) 58 ACSR 505
Gordon v Tolcher (2006) 231 ALR 582
Kalls Enterprises Pty Ltd v Baloglow [2006] NSWSC 617
McGrath v HIH Insurance Ltd (2004) 205 ALR 643
Murdoch v Weston (2004) 49 ACSR 166
New Cap Reinsurance v Reaseguros Alianza SA [2004] NSWSC 787
Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd (2003) 48 ACSR 562
Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd (2006) 57 ACSR 279
Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd (2006) 58 ACSR 466
Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1434
Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1447
Re Freshkept Technology Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 500
Re Shepherds Producers Co-operative Ltd (2006) 65 NSWLR 381
Rodgers v Commissioner of Taxation (1998) 88 FCR 61
Western Australia v Wardley Australia Ltd (1991) 30 FCR 245

PARTIES: Onefone Australia Pty Limited - First Plaintiff
DCA Resources Australia Pty Limited - Second Plaintiff
Pacific Finance Group Pty Limited - Third Plaintiff
Talent2 Works Pty Ltd - Fourth Plaintiff
One.Tel Limited - First Defendant
Steven Sherman - Second Defendant
Peter Walker - Third Defendant
Paul Gerard Walker - Special Purpose Liquidator
Martin Green and Darren Miller - CPH/PBL Applicants
News Limited, John Hartigan, Peter Macourt and Ian Philip - News Limited Applicants

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5291/03

COUNSEL: Mr N.A. Cotman SC/Mr R.D. Glasson - Special Purpose Liquidator
Mr T.F. Bathurst QC/Ms K.C. Morgan - CPH/PBL Applicants
Mr M.A. Pembroke SC - News Limited Applicants

SOLICITORS: NOT Lawyers - Special Purpose Liquidator
Atanaskovic Hartnell - CPH/PBL Applicants
Allens Arthur Robinson - News Limited Applicants

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 Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd 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: [2007] NSWSC 69
Decision Date: 14 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd involved a dispute between Onefone Australia Pty Ltd, as the plaintiff, and One.Tel Ltd, as the defendant. The plaintiff, a special purpose liquidator, sought to determine whether any viable causes of action arose from specific events relating to the defendant's financial dealings. The plaintiff applied for examination summonses to facilitate this investigation. The prospective examinees challenged the liquidator's application, seeking leave to be heard when the liquidator's application was considered. The central legal issues focused on whether the liquidator could pursue potential proceedings despite statutory time bars and if such bars could be overridden by agreements not to rely on them. Specifically, the case examined the implications of section 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act, which imposes a time limitation on bringing claims, and whether the court could order a further extension beyond the statutory period.

The court examined the statutory provisions and found that while section 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act set a three-year limit for bringing claims, this could be extended if done within that period. The court held that the liquidator's ability to pursue potential claims could indeed be preserved by agreements not to rely on time bars, provided these were entered into before the bar period expired. The court also considered whether the statutory limit could be further extended beyond the three-year period. It concluded that such an extension would be permissible if the delay was reasonable and justified under the circumstances. The court found that the liquidator's application was valid and granted the examination summonses, subject to the prospective examinees' right to be heard on the matter.

The final orders of the court mandated that the examination summonses be issued to the prospective examinees, provided they were given an opportunity to be heard on the liquidator's application. The court also directed that the prospective examinees could challenge the validity and scope of the summonses in the proceedings. The court's decision upheld the liquidator's authority to investigate potential claims and preserved the integrity of the statutory time limits, provided the agreements not to rely on those limits were made in good faith and before the statutory period elapsed.

Orders