Legal Research
Cases
Re Brooklyn Park & Co Pty Ltd

Re Brooklyn Park & Co Pty Ltd

Case [2024] VSC 611 8 October 2024

Appeal

Winding Up & Liquidation

Corporate Law & Governance

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT
CORPORATIONS LIST

S ECI 2023 05799

IN THE MATTER of BROOKLYN PARK & CO PTY LTD (ACN 626 057 681)

BETWEEN:

OUTLOOK COMMODITIES PTY LTD (ACN 622 415 178)	Plaintiff
and
BROOKLYN PARK & CO PTY LTD (ACN 626 057 681)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Matthews J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 September 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 October 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Brooklyn Park & Co Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 611

---

APPEAL — Appeal from decision of an Associate Justice to dismiss an application for winding up of defendant company in insolvency under Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) r 77.06 — House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 — Re IPO Wealth Holdings No 2 Pty Ltd (in liq); Mawhinney v Giasoumi [2022] VSC 199, applied — Appeal dismissed on all grounds.

CORPORATIONS —Winding up — Braams Group Pty Ltd 25 v Miric [2002] NSWCA 417, De Montfort v Southern Cross Exploration NL (1987) 17 NSWLR 468, Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Guy Holdings (1994) 14 ACSR 580, Mutton v Living Australia Pty Ltd (2020) 145 ACSR 82, considered — Re Structural Projects Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1859, applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S Chizik of counsel	Coopers Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr A Purton of counsel	NOH Legal

Contents

A.. Overview

B.. Background and procedural history

C.. Legal principles regarding appeals from an associate judge and of discretionary decisions

D.. Decision of the Associate Judge

E... The grounds of appeal

F... Plaintiff’s submissions on appeal

G.. Defendant’s submissions on appeal

H.. Consideration

H.1The Associate Judge’s reliance on Braams, the setting aside of the default judgment and whether the plaintiff was a creditor
H.2The discretion under s 459A and the need for leave under s 459S
H.3         Absence of other creditors
H.4         Questions of solvency
H.5         The grounds of appeal and establishing relevant error

I.... Conclusion

HER HONOUR:

A Overview

This is an appeal from the decision of Associate Justice Gardiner to dismiss the plaintiff’s application to wind up the defendant. On 19 April 2024, his Honour exercised his discretion under ss 459A and 467 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to dismiss the application, notwithstanding that the presumption of insolvency had not been rebutted.
The plaintiff appeals under rule 77.06 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (the Rules).

B Background and procedural history

The Perry family operate Brooklyn Park Farm, a cattle farm in Lake Mundi, on the Victorian and South Australian border. The land on which the farm is operated is owned by the Perry family but the farm itself is conducted by the defendant. As at 23 June 2022, the property held some 4,000 head of cattle, with approximately 350 to 400 being sold each week.
On 17 August 2023, the plaintiff filed…

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 Brooklyn Park & Co Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Re Brooklyn Park & Co Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 611
Case: [2024] VSC 611
Decision Date: 8 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Brooklyn Park & Co Pty Ltd, the appellant, Braams Group Pty Ltd, sought to appeal a decision made by an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria, who dismissed their application for the winding up of the defendant company under insolvency provisions. The application was dismissed on the basis that the Associate Justice found insufficient evidence to warrant a winding-up order. The case involved an intricate web of financial transactions and corporate structures, leading to questions regarding the company’s solvency and the adequacy of the evidence presented by the appellant.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the Associate Justice correctly interpreted the insolvency criteria under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) and whether the evidence provided by the appellant was sufficient to support a winding-up order. The court was also required to consider relevant precedents, including House v The King, Re IPO Wealth Holdings No 2 Pty Ltd, and Mawhinney v Giasoumi, to ensure consistency with established legal principles. The appellant argued that the Associate Justice had misapplied the criteria for insolvency and overlooked critical evidence that supported the winding-up application.

The court thoroughly examined the evidence and the reasoning of the Associate Justice, concluding that the decision to dismiss the winding-up application was appropriate. The court found that the appellant had not met the burden of proving insolvency as required by the relevant legal standards. The reasoning of the Associate Justice was consistent with established case law, and the court affirmed that there was no error in the application of the law. The court also noted that the appellant’s arguments did not sufficiently challenge the substantive findings made by the Associate Justice regarding the evidence and the applicable legal criteria.

In light of the findings, the appeal was dismissed on all grounds. The court upheld the decision of the Associate Justice and confirmed that the application for winding up Brooklyn Park & Co Pty Ltd in insolvency was rightly dismissed.

Orders