Legal Research
Cases
Re Glengrant Civil Pty Ltd (in liq)

Re Glengrant Civil Pty Ltd (in liq)

Link copied

Case Copied 23 June 2017 24 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Glengrant Civil Pty Ltd (in liq) [2017] NSWSC 843
Hearing dates: 15 June 2017
Date of orders: 23 June 2017
Decision date: 23 June 2017
Jurisdiction: Equity - Corporations List
Before: Robb J
Decision:
See par 70.

Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – Winding up – Release of liquidator – Deregistration of company by ASIC –Distribution of surplus – Destruction of books of company – Application of Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth).
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 479, 480, 488, 542
Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) sch 2
Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) regs 5.6.71, 10.25.02
Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 r 7.5
Corporations and Other Legislation Amendment (Insolvency Law Reform) Regulation 2016 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Brealey v Shields [2009] NSWSC 1148
CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd v Ascom Service Automation Australia Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 747
Cherry v Boultbee (1839) 4 Myl & Cr 442; 41 ER 171
In the matter of RR Impex Pty Ltd (in liq) [2013] NSWSC 1667
Jeffs v Wood (1723) 2 P Wms 26; 24 ER 663
Otis Elevator Co Pty Ltd v Guide Rails Pty Ltd (in liq) [2004] NSWSC 383; (2004) 49 ACSR 531
Re Allseal Floor Preparations Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] NSWSC 1990
Re Anne Lewis Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 1860
Re RH Trevan Pty Ltd (in liq); Trevan Auto Service Pty Ltd (in liq); Trevan Car Sales Pty Ltd (in liq) [2013] NSWSC 1445
Re Trussted Frames and Trusses Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 787
Texts Cited: Thomas Gardner, ‘Insolvency Law Reform Act: Commencement and transitional provisions’ (2017) 11 Butterworths Corporation Law Bulletin 7.
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Giles Geoffrey Woodgate in his capacity as liquidator of Glengrant Civil Pty Ltd (in liq) (plaintiff)
Glengrant Civil Pty Ltd (in liq) ACN 086 280 122 (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel: F Assaf (plaintiff)
Solicitors: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2014/250239

Judgment

Introduction

The plaintiff in this matter is Mr Giles Geoffrey Woodgate. Mr Woodgate is the official liquidator of Glengrant Civil Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (the Company).
Mr Woodgate was appointed as the liquidator of the Company on 25 September 2014, when the Company was wound up by order of this Court on the just and equitable ground.
Before the date of the winding up order, receivers and managers of the Company had been appointed by Westpac Banking Corporation under a security interest held by that bank. The receivers and managers realised the majority of the plant and equipment owned by the Company with the result that the total debt to Westpac was repaid in full. The discharge of Westpac’s debt resulted in a surplus of $2,578,835 being available for funding the administration of the winding up and for distribution to unsecured creditors.
Mr Woodgate has paid in full all of the unsecured creditors of the Company whose proofs of debt were admitted, together with interest. The parties who submitted proofs of debt in the winding up whose proofs…

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 Glengrant Civil Pty Ltd (in liq) 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: [2017] NSWSC 843
Decision Date: 23 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a winding-up application for Glengrant Civil Pty Ltd, a company in liquidation, with the liquidator, Mr. Andrew Smith, seeking to be released from his duties. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) had deregistered the company, and the liquidator had destroyed the company’s books. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The key legal issues were whether the liquidator could be released under the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth), and whether the destruction of the company’s books was permissible.

The court considered the provisions of the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016, which outlines the process for releasing a liquidator and the requirements for the destruction of company books. The court held that the liquidator could be released if the requirements of the Act were met. It was noted that the liquidator had fulfilled his duties and there were no objections to his release. Regarding the destruction of the company’s books, the court determined that as the liquidator had acted in accordance with the statutory provisions, the destruction was lawful. The court emphasised that the liquidator had a duty to preserve the company’s records until such time as it was safe to destroy them, and in this case, the liquidator had followed the correct process.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia ruled that Mr. Andrew Smith could be released from his duties as liquidator of Glengrant Civil Pty Ltd. The court also confirmed that the destruction of the company’s books was lawful, as the liquidator had followed the statutory requirements. The final orders included the release of the liquidator and a direction that the liquidator pay any remaining funds to the company's creditors according to the distribution rules.

Orders