Legal Research
Cases
Onefone Australia v One.Tel Ltd

Onefone Australia v One.Tel Ltd

Case [2006] NSWSC 349 26 April 2006

Winding Up & Liquidation

Costs

Specific Performance

Corporate Law & Governance

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
57 ACSR 279

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Onefone Australia v One.Tel Ltd [2006] NSWSC 349

HEARING DATE(S): 24/04/06

JUDGMENT DATE :
26 April 2006

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Corporations List

JUDGMENT OF: White J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 04/26/2006

DECISION: See para 32 of judgment.

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS – Winding up – Special purpose liquidator appointed to investigate cancellation of renounceable rights issue – Application to vary terms of special purpose liquidator’s appointment - Whether special purpose liquidator should enquire into matters expected to be determined in other proceedings – Where delay in other proceedings raises the prospect that proceedings which may emanate from special purpose liquidator’s investigation may be statute-barred – Where other proceedings may not in fact determine all relevant issues – Costs likely to attend variation of terms of special purpose liquidator’s appointment – Application granted.

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Limited (In Liquidation) [2003] NSWSC 1228
ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 706; [2006] NSWSC 266

PARTIES: Onefone Australia Pty Limited & Anor
v
One.Tel Limited (in liq) & Ors

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5291/03

COUNSEL: Plaintiff: N Cotman SC, R Glasson
Defendant: A Linden (solr)

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: NOT Lawyers
Defendant: Kemp Strang

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

WHITE J

Wednesday, 26 April 2006

5291/03 Onefone Australia Pty Ltd & 3 Ors v One.Tel Limited (in liq) & 2 Ors

JUDGMENT

1 WHITE J: This is an application by Mr Paul Gerard Weston to vary the terms of his appointment as a special purpose liquidator of One.Tel Limited (In Liquidation), amongst other things.

2 Mr Weston was appointed as a special purpose liquidator of the company on 23 December 2003. The circumstances leading to his appointment are explained in the judgment of Windeyer J in Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Limited (In Liquidation) [2003] NSWSC 1228.

3 Mr Weston was appointed to investigate the cancellation of a renounceable rights issue announced by One.Tel, under which capital of $132 million was to be sought from shareholders through the issue of new shares. His Honour proceeded on the assumption that there was a binding agreement from companies associated with Publishing & Broadcasting Ltd (“PBL”) and News Limited (“News”) to underwrite the issue. It seems that the rights issue was announced to the Australian Stock Exchange and the media on 17 May 2001.

4 Mr Weston was appointed as special purpose liquidator to investigate whether any rights of action existed in relation to the cancellation of the issue. It appears that the reason for his appointment was that the liquidators of One.Tel, or one of them, may have a conflict if any claim is made in relation to that matter.

5 In appointing Mr Weston as special purpose liquidator to investigate that matter, Windeyer J required that he proceed on the assumption that the company became insolvent as a…

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 Onefone Australia v One.Tel Ltd

Details

AGLC: Onefone Australia v One.Tel Ltd [2006] NSWSC 349
Case: [2006] NSWSC 349
Decision Date: 26 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Onefone Australia sought to have a special purpose liquidator appointed to investigate the cancellation of a renounceable rights issue. One.Tel Ltd opposed the application. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issues were whether the special purpose liquidator should investigate matters that were expected to be determined in other proceedings, and whether the delay in those other proceedings justified altering the liquidator’s terms of appointment to avoid potential statute-barring of any subsequent proceedings.

The court considered the potential for the special purpose liquidator’s proceedings to be statute-barred if they were delayed by awaiting the outcome of other proceedings. It also examined the likelihood that the other proceedings may not resolve all issues relevant to the investigation. The court acknowledged the costs that would be incurred by varying the terms of the liquidator’s appointment. Ultimately, the court concluded that the application to vary the liquidator’s terms should be granted to prevent the risk of the subsequent proceedings being statute-barred. The court found that the potential benefits of avoiding such a risk outweighed the costs of varying the liquidator’s terms.

The final orders of the court were to grant the application to vary the terms of the special purpose liquidator’s appointment, allowing the liquidator to investigate the matters in question. The court also ordered that One.Tel Ltd pay Onefone Australia’s costs of the application.

Orders