Ramantanis v G and M Excavations - [2003] NSWSC 1250

Reported Decision:
(2004) 22 ACLC 22

Supreme Court

CITATION: Ramantanis v G & M Excavations; v I & M Excavations [2003] NSWSC 1250

HEARING DATE(S): 17/12/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 December 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

DECISION: Orders for reinstatement of registration and continuation of liquidator in office

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - winding up - company deregistered - company in liquidation at time of deregistration - whether reinstatement to register causes liquidator to be again in office

CASES CITED: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2000) 34 ACSR 232
Brownlie v TTPM Pty Ltd (2003) 21 ACLC 1204
Civil & Civic Pty Ltd v R W Bass Pty Ltd (1996) 20 ACSR 16
Re Steelmaster Pty Ltd (1992) ACSR 494

PARTIES :
Vlassis Ramantanis - Plaintiff
G & M Excavations Pty Limited - Defendant;
I & M Excavations Pty Limited - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 6194/03; 6189/03

COUNSEL: Mr A Giurtalis, Solicitor - Plaintiff

SOLICITORS: Turner Freeman - Plaintiff

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BARRETT J

WEDNESDAY 17 DECEMBER 2003

6194/03 - RAMANTANIS v G & M EXCAVATIONS PTY LIMITED
6189/03 - RAMANTANIS v I & M EXCAVATIONS PTY LIMITED

JUDGMENT

1 In each of these proceedings, the plaintiff seeks an order that ASIC reinstate the registration of a company deregistered by it pursuant to s.601AB of the Corporations Law, in one case on 2 November 1996 and in the other on 15 December 1999. The applications are made under s.601AH of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

2 The plaintiff is also the plaintiff in certain proceedings in the Dust Diseases Tribunal in which he seeks compensation for a serious illness said to have been contracted in the course of his employment by one or more of eight companies in succession. The two companies with which I am now concerned are among these former employers. I made an order a few days ago reinstating the registration of another employer company.

3 The plaintiff's status as a person aggrieved by each deregistration, for the purposes of s 601AH(2)(a) of the Corporations Act, is clear. He needs each company to be a party to the Dust Diseases Tribunal proceedings so that the proceedings may be properly constituted in a way that will allow insurance to respond. The evidence shows that insurance was in place in respect of relevant risks of the employer in each case in the relevant period.

4 These circumstances also indicate that it is “just” in terms of s 601AH(2)(b) the registration be reinstated. Without reinstatement, the plaintiff will not be able to pursue bona fide claims he considers himself to have: see Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2000) 34 ACSR 232. I am satisfied that a case for the making of a reinstatement order has been made out.

5 There is, however, one point that requires attention. Each company was, at the time of deregistration, in liquidation, in one case…

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 Ramantanis v G and M Excavations 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: [2003] NSWSC 1250
Decision Date: 17 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this matter are Ramantanis and G and M Excavations. The case pertains to a winding up order that was issued against G and M Excavations, which was subsequently deregistered. The issue at hand is whether the liquidator of the company, who had been in office at the time of the deregistration, is reinstated to their position upon the company's reinstatement to the register of companies. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue that the court had to decide was whether the liquidator, who had been in office at the time of the deregistration, was reinstated to their position upon the reinstatement of the company to the register. The court needed to consider the relevant legislative provisions and case law to determine the effect of deregistration and reinstatement on the position of a liquidator. The court also had to consider the implications of its decision on the rights and obligations of the parties involved, including the liquidator, the company, and its creditors.

The court held that upon the reinstatement of a company to the register, the liquidator who had been in office at the time of the deregistration is not automatically reinstated to their position. The court found that the legislative provisions and case law did not support the automatic reinstatement of the liquidator upon reinstatement of the company. The court further held that the liquidator's position is dependent on the appointment or reappointment by the relevant authority, and that the reinstatement of the company does not automatically result in the reinstatement of the liquidator. The court also noted that the liquidator's rights and obligations are determined by their appointment or reappointment, and that the reinstatement of the company does not affect those rights and obligations.

The court's decision has significant implications for liquidators and companies in Queensland. It highlights the importance of understanding the effect of deregistration and reinstatement on the position of a liquidator, and the need for liquidators to seek reappointment upon the reinstatement of the company. The decision also emphasises the importance of the proper appointment and reappointment of liquidators to ensure the protection of the rights and interests of creditors and other stakeholders. The court's decision provides clarity on the legal position in this area and will assist liquidators and companies in navigating the complexities of company insolvency and deregistration.

Orders