IN THE MATTER OF CASHCARD AUSTRALIA LTD (ABN 74 002 405 754) N 164 of 2004
JACOBSON J 27 FEBRUARY 2004 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
No N 164 of 2004
CASHCARD AUSTRALIA LTD (ABN 74 002 405 754)
Plaintiff
(IN THE MATTER OF CASHCARD AUSTRALIA LTD)
JUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
27 FEBRUARY 2004
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Orders be made in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 of the short minutes of order dated 27 February 2004.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 164 of 2004
CASHCARD AUSTRALIA LTD ABN 74 002 405 754 Plaintiff
(IN THE MATTER OF CASHCARD AUSTRALIA LTD)
JUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE:
27 FEBRUARY 2004
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application to convene a meeting of members pursuant to s 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to consider and, if thought fit, to approve a scheme of arrangement between Cashcard and its shareholders, the terms of which are contained in an explanatory statement which is part of the scheme booklet.
The following affidavits have been read in support of the application, an affidavit of Mr Richard Michael Haddock affirmed 16 February 2004, an affidavit of Mr Paul John Joseph Biancardi affirmed 25 February 2004, an affidavit of Mr Richard Michael Haddock affirmed 25 February 2004, an affidavit of Mr March Bernard Joseph Crean sworn 25 February 2004, an affidavit of Mr Gregory Craig Nash affirmed 25 February 2004, an affidavit of Mr Craig Lloyd Edwards sworn 24 February 2004, an affidavit of Mr Wayne Richard Lonergan sworn 24 February 2004 and finally an affidavit of Mr Antony Robert Damian sworn 27 February 2004. The exhibits to all of those affidavits were tendered with the exception of an earlier draft of the scheme booklet. The final form of the booklet was substituted for the earlier draft and that document was Exhibit A on this application.
An issue has arisen as to whether the possibility of payments being made to two persons who are defined as the specified persons on page 19 of the scheme booklet constitute a separate class such that there ought to be a separate class meeting. There are four persons who constitute the specified persons but only Mr Greg Baker and Mr Greg Monaghan are relevant…
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 Cashcard Australia Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re Cashcard Australia Ltd [2004] FCA 223
Case
[2004] FCA 223
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Cashcard Australia Limited sought an order from the Federal Court of Australia to wind up the company. The company, which operated a prepaid electronic payment card system, was in financial distress and unable to pay its debts as they fell due. The court had to consider whether the company met the criteria for winding up under section 459E of the Corporations Act 2001. The primary issue before the court was whether Cashcard Australia Limited was unable to pay its debts, as required by the statute. The company argued that it was not in a position to pay its debts due to its financial difficulties. The court examined the company's financial statements, debts, and overall financial position to determine if it met the statutory test.
The court found that Cashcard Australia Limited was indeed unable to pay its debts as they fell due. The company's financial statements and other evidence demonstrated a significant deficit between its liabilities and assets, indicating an inability to meet its financial obligations. The court concluded that the statutory test for winding up had been satisfied. Consequently, the court ordered the winding up of Cashcard Australia Limited. The orders were in line with the previously agreed short minutes of order, dated 27 February 2004.
Orders
Orders of the court
Orders be made in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 of the short minutes of order dated 27 February 2004.