Perrin v Williams

[2014] QSC 21

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Perrin v Williams & Anor [2014] QSC 21

PARTIES:

MATTHEW DAVID PERRIN

(applicant)

v

JULIE ANN WILLIAMS AS LIQUIDATOR OF ACN 084 908 092 PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 084 908 092

(first respondent)

and

NICOLE KATHLEEN BRICKNELL (NEE PERRIN)

(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS8597/13

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Determination of separate questions

DELIVERED ON:

28 February 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 February 2014

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDER:

The order of the court is that:

1.  the separate questions set down for determination be answered as follows:

(a)      whether the first respondent made any decision to reject for dividend purposes the second respondent’s proof of debt submitted on or about 11 March 2009? - No

(b)      whether the first respondent made a decision as to whether the proof of debt dated 7 August 2013 lodged by the second respondent was the basis for the only claim by second respondent against the company? - Yes

(c) whether the applicant was an aggrieved person pursuant to section 1321 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) when the appeal was started? - No

2.       The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the hearing of the separate questions.

CATCHWORDS:

CORPORATIONS – WINDING UP – CONDUCT AND INCIDENTS OF WINDING UP – PROOF OF DEBTS – PROCEDURE – creditor of a company in liquidation submitted two formal proofs of debt – liquidator accepted the second proof of debt – whether the liquidator failed to adjudicate or decided to reject first proof of debt – whether the liquidator made a decision that the second proof of debt was the basis for the only claim by the creditor against the company

CORPORATIONS – WINDING UP – LIQUIDATORS – APPEAL FROM LIQUIDATOR’S DECISIONS – the appellant had an unrelated claim against the creditor – the appellant sought to challenge the liquidator’s actions in respect of the creditor’s proofs of debt – the creditor assigned its rights to the appellant after the liquidator accepted the second proof of debt – whether the appellant was a person aggrieved under s 1321 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

COUNSEL:

P D Tucker for the applicant

C Johnstone for the first respondent

No appearance for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Tucker & Cowan for the applicant

James Conomos Lawyers for the first respondent

1. JACKSON J: The originating application is made by way of appeal under s 1321 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“CA”). Under that section a person aggrieved by an act, omission or decision of a liquidator of a company may appeal to the court. The court may confirm, reserve or modify the act or decision or remedy the omission and make such orders and give such directions as it thinks fit.

1. By the application, the applicant, Mr Perrin, contends that the first respondent liquidator, Ms Williams, made decisions:

(a)not to adjudicate on a proof of debt submitted by [Ms Bricknell] in or about March 2009…

(b)to treat the proof of debt…