Legal Research
Cases
Re C2C Investments Pty Ltd

Re C2C Investments Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 28 November 2012 37 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of C2C Investments Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1443
Hearing dates: 15 November 2012
Decision date: 28 November 2012
Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Corporations List
Before: Black J
Decision:
Interlocutory Process dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: CORPORATIONS - Winding up - Substitution of applicants - Whether applicant was someone who might otherwise have applied for company to be wound up - Whether court should decline to order substitution in circumstances where a registrar has decided to allow it.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Review of decision of registrar - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 49.19 - Application to set aside decision of a registrar.
Legislation Cited: -Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss56-58
- Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 420A, 459C(1), 459C(2)(a), 459E, 459H, 459P, 459P(1), 459P(1)(b), 459Q, 461, 462, 465B, 465B(1), 465B(2)
- Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Pt 80 r 21
- Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 13.4, 49.19
Cases Cited: - Artistic Builders Pty Ltd v Elliot & Tuthill (Mortgages) Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 16; (2002) 10 BPR 19,565
- Beverage Holdings Pty Ltd v Greater Pacific Investments Pty Ltd (1990) 3 ACSR 743
- Central City Pty Ltd v Montevento Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 5
- Chadwick Industries (South Coast) Pty Ltd v Condensing Vaporisers Pty Ltd (1994) 13 ACSR 37
- CVC Investments Pty Ltd v P & T Aviation Pty Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 295; 7 ACLC 1218
- Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Sun Heating Pty Ltd [1983] 2 NSWLR 78; (1983) 8 ACLR 314
- Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Rural and General Insurance Broking Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 683; (2011) 84 ACSR 555
- DMK Building Materials Pty Ltd v CB Baker Timbers Pty Ltd (1985) 2 MSW:R 74; 10 ACLR 16
- Earthwave Corporation Pty Ltd v Starcom Group Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 694
- Eyota Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 785
- Florgale Uniforms Pty Ltd v Orders [2004] VSC 65; (2004) 11 VR 54; 51 ACSR 699
- JPQS Pty Ltd v Redpen Developments Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 687
- John Holland Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd v Kilpatrick Green Pty Ltd (1994) 14 ACSR 250
- Menzies v Paccar Financial Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 460
- Mibor Investments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1994] 2 VR 290; (1993) 11 ACSR 362
- Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham (No 2) [2009] FCA 773; (2009) 72 ACSR 684
- Motor Terms Co Pty Ltd v Liberty Insurance Ltd (in liq) (1967) 116 CLR 177
- Panel Tech Industries (Australia) Pty Ltd v Australian Skyreach Equipment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2003] NSWSC 896
- South East Water Ltd v Kitoria Pty Ltd (1996) 21 ACSR 465
- Tokich Holdings Pty Ltd v Sheraton Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2004] NSWSC 527; (2004) 185 FLR 130
- Tomko v Palasty…

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 Re C2C Investments Pty Ltd 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: [2012] NSWSC 1443
Decision Date: 28 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re C2C Investments Pty Ltd involved a winding up application concerning a company, with the primary issue being the substitution of the applicant. The applicant, initially, was not someone who could have applied for the company to be wound up under the Corporations Act. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the court was tasked with determining whether the applicant should be substituted under the circumstances where the registrar had allowed such substitution.

The legal issues at hand were whether the applicant could be substituted and if the court should uphold the registrar's decision to allow the substitution. The court needed to examine the relevant statutory provisions and the procedural rules that govern such substitutions. Specifically, the court considered whether the substitution was permissible under the Corporations Act and whether the application to set aside the registrar's decision was valid under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 49.19.

The court's reasoning centred on the interpretation of the statutory requirements for substitution of an applicant and the procedural fairness in allowing such substitution. The court found that the applicant could indeed be substituted as they were someone who might otherwise have applied for the winding up of the company. The court also held that the registrar's decision to allow the substitution was reasonable and in line with the applicable legal principles. Consequently, the application to set aside the registrar's decision was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application to set aside the registrar's decision to allow the substitution of the applicant. This decision ensured that the winding up application could proceed with the substituted applicant, maintaining the integrity of the statutory framework and procedural fairness.

Orders