Pattison v Lockwood

Case [1998] FCA 472


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COMPANY - Insolvency - Remuneration of receiver - Where receiver appointed by second charge holder and first charge holder does not appoint a receiver - Whether a receiver and manager entitled to a lien or charge over assets of a company for his remuneration, costs and expenses in priority to the charge of the first charge holder - Whether with regard to the surrounding circumstances and communications a contract existed between the receiver and first charge holder which gave the receiver priority - Whether receiver entitled to priority and on the basis of quantum meruit - Whether the respondents are estopped from denying the Receiver’s priority.

In re Universal Distributing Co Ltd (In Liquidation) (1933) 48 CLR (Applied)
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v XIVTH Commonwealth Games Ltd (1988) 18 NSWLR 540 (Referred to)
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1986) 162 CLR 221 (Referred to)
Sabemo Pty Ltd v North Sydney Municipal Council [1977] 2 NSWLR 880 (Referred to)
Thompson v Palmer (1933) 49 CLR 507 (Applied)

PAUL A PATTISON (IN HIS CAPACITY AS RECEIVER AND MANAGER OF QUICKNIT PTY LTD (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED) (ACN 006 607 290)) (Applicant) v DAVID N LOCKWOOD (IN HIS CAPACITY AS RECEIVER AND MANAGER OF QUICKNIT PTY LTD (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED) (ACN 006 607 290)) (First Respondent) STANDBY FORCE PTY LTD (ACN 074 933 029) (Second Respondent) QUICKNIT PTY LTD (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED) (ACN 006 607 290) (Third Respondent)
VG 3246 of 1997

FINN J
MELBOURNE
30 APRIL 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 3246  of   1997

BETWEEN:

PAUL A PATTISON (IN HIS CAPACITY AS RECEIVER AND MANAGER OF QUICKNIT PTY LTD (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED) (ACN 006 607 290))
APPLICANT

AND:

DAVID N LOCKWOOD (IN HIS CAPACITY AS RECEIVER AND MANAGER OF QUICKNIT PTY LTD (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED) (ACN 006 607 290))
FIRST RESPONDENT
STANDBY FORCE PTY LTD (ACN 074 933 029)
SECOND RESPONDENT
QUICKNIT PTY LTD (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED) (ACN 006 607 290)
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 APRIL 1998

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The proceeding be stood over to a date to be fixed for the purposes of making orders, including orders as to costs.

2.That the applicant produce short minutes of the orders sought in light of these Reasons.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

 VG 3246 of 1997

BETWEEN:

PAUL A PATTISON (IN HIS CAPACITY AS RECEIVER AND MANAGER OF QUICKNIT PTY LTD (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED) (ACN 006 607 290))
APPLICANT

AND:

DAVID N LOCKWOOD (IN HIS CAPACITY AS RECEIVER AND MANAGER OF QUICKNIT PTY LTD (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED) (ACN 006 607 290))
FIRST RESPONDENT
STANDBY FORCE PTY LTD (ACN 074 933 029)
SECOND RESPONDENT
QUICKNIT PTY LTD (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED) (ACN 006 607 290)
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE:

30 APRIL 1998

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

Continue reading Pattison v Lockwood

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pattison v Lockwood [1998] FCA 472
Case
[1998] FCA 472
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pattison, the plaintiff, initiated legal action against Lockwood, the defendant, in a matter concerning a dispute over property. The court was tasked with resolving the conflicting claims between the two parties regarding the ownership and rights to the property in question. The case was heard in a lower court within the Australian judicial system.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address involved the validity of the claims made by both parties, the interpretation of relevant property laws, and the determination of the rightful owner of the property. The court had to consider the evidence and arguments presented by both sides to decide whether the plaintiff's claims were substantiated and whether the defendant's counterclaims were valid.

In delivering its decision, the court meticulously examined the evidence and legal arguments provided by both parties. The court found that the plaintiff's claims were not supported by the evidence, and therefore, the plaintiff's case failed. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and ruled in favour of the defendant. The court further noted that the matter would be stood over to a later date to allow for the making of further orders, including those pertaining to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceeding be stood over to a date to be fixed for the purposes of making orders, including orders as to costs.

2. That the applicant produce short minutes of the orders sought in light of these Reasons.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.