Pacanowski v Australian Securities Commission

This matter concerns an application by Mr David Henry Pacanowski for the reinstatement of the registration of Galite Holdings Pty Ltd, a company which had its registration cancelled by the Australian Securities Commission. The application was made under section 574(3) of the Corporations Law and the grounds for the application were that it was just that the registration of the company be reinstated. Mr Harry Wygoda had initially sought to intervene in the proceedings, and while the underlying dispute between Pacanowski and Wygoda has been settled, Galite's action against Wygoda in the Supreme Court will continue.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether Pacanowski was a person aggrieved within the meaning of section 574(3) and whether it was just for the company to be reinstated. Pacanowski argued that he had standing to bring the application as he was a creditor of the company and had an interest in the pursuit of the litigation of the company against Wygoda. The court accepted that Pacanowski had standing to make the application, as his interest was, at least arguably, as a creditor of the company. The court then considered whether it was just for the company to be reinstated, and while no satisfactory explanation had been given as to why circumstances had arisen where statutory returns were not lodged and which led to Galite being deregistered, the Australian Securities Commission did not object to Galite's reinstatement. The court was satisfied that Pacanowski had a legitimate interest in availing himself of benefits that might flow from the Company being reinstated and thus being able to resume trading.

The court found that it was just for the company to be reinstated and ordered the reinstatement of the registration of Galite pursuant to section 574 of the Corporations Law. The court was satisfied that Pacanowski had standing to bring the application and that it was just for the company to be reinstated. The Australian Securities Commission did not object to Galite's reinstatement, and the court found that it was just for the company to be reinstated. The court ordered the reinstatement of the registration of Galite pursuant to section 574 of the Corporations Law.