PETER STANNARD HOMES PTY LTD -v- LYFORD [2000] WASC 18

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 18
Published:	07/02/2000
Case No:	COR:334/1999	Heard:	18 JANUARY 2000
Coram:	MASTER BREDMEYER	Delivered:	28/01/00
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	PETER STANNARD HOMES PTY LTD MAURICE HODGSON LYFORD
Catchwords:	Corporations Application to remove administrator
Legislation:	Corporations Law s 449B, s 447A, s 447B, s 447E
Case References:	Network Exchange Pty Ltd v MIG International (1994) 12 ACLC 594 Australasian Memory Pty Ltd v Brien (1998) 16 ACLC 1750 Petrochemical Industries Ltd (In Liq) v Dempster Nominees Pty Ltd (administrator appointed) (1995) 15 ACSR 468 Re Ballon (1994) 12 ACLC 166

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : PETER STANNARD HOMES PTY LTD -v- LYFORD [2000] WASC 18 CORAM : MASTER BREDMEYER HEARD : 18 JANUARY 2000 DELIVERED : 28 JANUARY 2000 PUBLISHED : 7 FEBRUARY 2000 FILE NO/S : COR 334 of 1999 BETWEEN : PETER STANNARD HOMES PTY LTD

Applicant

AND

MAURICE HODGSON LYFORD

Respondent

Catchwords:

Corporations - Application to remove administrator

Legislation:

Corporations Law s 449B, s 447A, s 447B, s 447E

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr G R Donaldson

Respondent : Ms K Eagle

Solicitors:

Applicant : Hotchkin Hanly

Respondent : Cahill Billington

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Network Exchange Pty Ltd v MIG International (1994) 12 ACLC 594

Case(s) also cited:

Australasian Memory Pty Ltd v Brien (1998) 16 ACLC 1750
Petrochemical Industries Ltd (In Liq) v Dempster Nominees Pty Ltd (administrator appointed) (1995) 15 ACSR 468
Re Ballon (1994) 12 ACLC 166

(Page 3)

1 MASTER BREDMEYER: This is an application by a creditor to remove the administrator of Turner Corporation Pty Ltd (the company) and replace him by another. The applicant is Peter Stannard Homes Pty Ltd, which is a major creditor of the company, with a debt of $200,000. It is a judgment debt. The present administrator is the respondent, Mr Lyford. The applicant wants the Court to replace him with a Mr Francis. Both are qualified liquidators, receivers and administrators.

2 The application is made under s 449B, s 447A, s 447B and s 447E of the Corporations Law (the Law), but the most relevant section is s 449B. I accept the view of Hayne J in Network Exchange Pty Ltd v MIG International (1994) 12 ACLC 594 at 599 that an administrator should be replaced only if that would be "for the better conduct of the administration". It is not done on a whim or because a creditor prefers A to B.

3 I note that, although five orders are stated in the application, the present application is for orders 1, 2 and 5 only. It is not sought today to set aside the deed of company arrangement. That part of the application is to be adjourned.

4 I now consider the several matters said to justify the removal of Mr Lyford. The…

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 Peter Stannard Homes Pty Ltd v Lyford 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: [2000] WASC 18
Decision Date: 7 FEBRUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Peter Stannard Homes Pty Ltd, a company incorporated in Queensland, the applicant sought to remove the administrator appointed by the Court. The respondent, Lyford, was appointed as the administrator of the company. The dispute centred around the efficacy and appropriateness of the administrator's appointment. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the appointment of the administrator was valid and whether there were grounds to remove the administrator. The applicant argued that the administrator was not appropriately appointed due to procedural irregularities and that his actions were detrimental to the company's interests. The Court had to consider the statutory framework governing the appointment and removal of administrators and whether the applicant had provided sufficient grounds to warrant the removal of the administrator.

The Court examined the statutory provisions governing the appointment and removal of administrators and the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Lyford. The Court found that the appointment was valid and that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the removal of the administrator. The Court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the administrator was unfit or had acted in a manner that warranted his removal. The Court dismissed the application, upholding the administrator's appointment. The Court made an order that the application to remove the administrator was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.