Legal Research
Cases
Re Arresso Consulting Pty Ltd

Re Arresso Consulting Pty Ltd

Case [2019] NSWSC 997 31 July 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Arresso Consulting Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 997
Hearing dates: 31 July 2019
Decision date: 31 July 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
1. Order pursuant to s 499(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that Glenn Crisp be appointed as Liquidator of Arresso Consulting Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) and that this appointment take effect immediately upon Glenn Crisp filing the appropriate notice with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
2. Order pursuant to s 473A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that Sule Arnautovic be appointed as liquidator of MP&HE Services Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) and that this appointment take effect immediately upon Liam Bellamy filing with the Registrar and the lodgement with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission a memorandum of resignation in accordance with r 7.1 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 (NSW).
3. Order that, to the extent necessary, leave be granted in accordance with s 532(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for the replacement of Liam Bellamy with Glenn Crisp and Sule Arnautovic as liquidator of Arresso Consulting Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) and MP&HE Services Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) respectively.

Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – Winding up – replacement of liquidator – where proposed liquidators are connected with the same firm as resigning liquidator – whether proposed liquidators should be appointed liquidator of respective companies
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 473, 473A, 499, 532
Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 (NSW), r 7.1
Cases Cited: Condon v Watson [2009] FCA 11; (2009) 174 FCR 314; 69 ACSR 350
In the matter of Bridgewater Investments Pty Limited and other Companies referred to in Schedules A and G to the Amended Originating Process [2013] NSWSC 426
In the Matter of FGM Print Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1478
In the matter of Kukulovski, Arnautovic & Crisp [2015] NSWSC 2040
In the matter of Richard James Porter and David Ian Mansfield [2012] NSWSC 220
Re Free [2010] NSWSC 1079
Rowena Margaret Sigelski, James Alexander Shaw, Paul William Gidley and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) [2012] NSWSC 449
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Glenn Crisp (First Plaintiff)
Sule Arnautovic (Second Plaintiff)
Liam Bellamy (Third Plaintiff)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Hegarty (Solicitor)
Solicitors:
Hegarty Legal (Plaintiffs)

File Number(s): 2019/00234815
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: This is an application brought ex parte under ss 473, 473A(1) and 499(3) of the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) (the Corporations Act) in circumstances where the registered liquidator of Arresso Consulting Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Arresso Consulting) and MP&HE Services Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (MP&HE Services) (to which I will together refer as “the companies”) has resigned from the firm, Jirsch Sutherland, where he is a salaried partner.
The current liquidator, Mr Liam Bellamy, has deposed in his affidavit sworn 25 July 2019 to the circumstances in which the application is made and to the matters on the basis of which he has formed the view that it is…

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.

Continue reading Re Arresso Consulting Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: In the matter of Arresso Consulting Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 997
Case: [2019] NSWSC 997
Decision Date: 31 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Arresso Consulting Pty Ltd and its liquidators, along with potential replacement liquidators. The dispute centred on the winding up of the company and the appointment of a new liquidator to replace the resigning one. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the proposed replacement liquidators, who were connected with the same firm as the resigning liquidator, should be appointed as the new liquidators of the respective companies.

The court considered the relevant legislation and case law on the appointment of liquidators and the requirement for independence. It found that the connection between the proposed replacement liquidators and the resigning liquidator did not necessarily disqualify them from being appointed as liquidators. The court held that the primary consideration should be the suitability and independence of the proposed liquidators, rather than their connection to the resigning liquidator. The court also considered the potential impact on the creditors and the interests of justice in making its decision.

Based on its reasoning, the court concluded that the proposed replacement liquidators should be appointed as the new liquidators of the respective companies. The court found that they were suitable and independent, and that their connection to the resigning liquidator did not outweigh the other considerations. The court also noted that the creditors had not raised any objections to the proposed replacement liquidators, and that their appointment would not prejudice any of the parties involved.

The final orders made by the court were that the proposed replacement liquidators be appointed as the new liquidators of the respective companies. The court also ordered that the resigning liquidator be removed from office and that the new liquidators be given all necessary powers to carry out their duties. The court's decision provided clarity on the issue of the appointment of replacement liquidators and the requirements for their independence and suitability.

Orders