Re Link Construction (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) - [2016] NSWSC 684

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Link Construction (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2016] NSWSC 684
Hearing dates: 23 May 2016
Decision date: 23 May 2016
Jurisdiction: Equity - Corporations List
Before: Black J
Decision:
Order that Plaintiff be granted leave to proceed with, and maintain, proceedings against the First Defendant in the District Court of New South Wales with effect from 19 April 2016. Leave granted upon condition that Plaintiff will not seek to enforce any judgment against the First Defendant without leave of the Court.

Catchwords: CORPORATIONS — Order sought for leave to be granted nunc pro tunc under s 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to proceed with claims against company in voluntary liquidation – where application for leave under s 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) was filed after the expiry of relevant limitation period for the claims in substantive proceedings – whether leave should be granted in circumstances that company defending the substantive proceedings may be indemnified by insurer in respect of the claims – whether if leave is granted nunc pro tunc it should be granted from the date of commencement of the substantive proceedings in circumstances where that may deprive company of limitation defence.
Legislation Cited: - Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 500
- Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), s 54
- Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
- Sydney Water Act 1994 (NSW), s 45
Cases Cited: - Altinova Nominees Pty Ltd v Leveraged Capital Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) (No 2) [2009] FCA 42
- Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation [2000] FCA 439; (2000) 173 ALR 427
- HFPS Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Tamaya Resources Ltd (in liq) (No 1) [2016] FCA 442
- Oceanic Life Ltd v Insurance and Retirement Planning Services Pty Ltd (in liq) (1993) 11ACSR 516
- Re Gordon Grant v Grant Pty Ltd [1983] 2 Qd R 314; (1983) 7 ACLR 669
- Swaby v Lift Capital Partners Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 749; (2009) 72 ACSR 627
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Sydney Water Corporation (Plaintiff)
Link Construction (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (First Defendant)
Civil Foundations Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Sykes (Plaintiff)
P Riordan (Solicitor - Defendants)
Solicitors:
Sparke Helmore (Plaintiff)
Thompson Cooper Lawyers (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2016/120346

Judgment – ex tempore

Nature of the application

By Originating Process filed on 19 April 2016 the Plaintiff, Sydney Water Corporation (“SWC”) applies, under s 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for leave, nunc pro tunc, to maintain proceedings in the District Court of New South Wales which it has commenced against the First Defendant, Link Construction (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) (“Link”). The liquidator of Link is on notice of the application, and Link, or the liquidator, appears today by solicitors who, it appears, represent it or them in the proceedings although they are also retained by Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (“Allianz”), whose interest in the proceedings will…

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 Link Construction (NSW) 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: [2016] NSWSC 684
Decision Date: 23 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Link Construction (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq), the court was asked to consider an application for leave under section 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to proceed with claims against a company in voluntary liquidation. The applicant sought leave to be granted nunc pro tunc to allow the claims to be pursued despite the limitation period having expired. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether leave should be granted nunc pro tunc, given that the application for leave was made after the expiration of the relevant limitation period. The court also needed to consider the implications if the leave was granted, particularly whether it should be granted from the date of commencement of the substantive proceedings, which might deprive the company of its limitation defence. The court had to balance the applicant's right to pursue the claims against the statutory limitations and the potential implications for the company being indemnified by an insurer.

The court determined that the leave should be granted nunc pro tunc, but not from the date of commencement of the substantive proceedings. Instead, the leave was granted from the date of the application, preserving the company's limitation defence up until that point. The court found that the potential indemnity from the insurer was a significant factor in its decision, as it would otherwise unfairly prejudice the company if the leave was granted from the start of the substantive proceedings.

The final order of the court was that leave was granted nunc pro tunc from the date of the application, allowing the applicant to proceed with the claims against the company in voluntary liquidation. The company's limitation defence was preserved until the date of the application, ensuring a fair outcome for both parties.

Orders