Re Parkway One Pty Limited (No 2)

In the matter of Parkway One Pty Limited (No 2), the dispute involved the liquidator of a corporate trustee, Parkway One, who sought to be appointed as the receiver and manager of the trust property. The corporate trustee was the sole shareholder of a related company, and there was no ipso facto clause in the trust deed, and no requirement for the trustee to notify the trustee of its removal. The sole shareholder had attempted to replace the trust deed, the trustee, and to circumvent the court’s earlier refusal to terminate the liquidation, on the basis of concerns as to commercial morality. The court had to determine whether the liquidator could be appointed as the receiver and manager of the trust property.

The court had to decide whether the liquidator of the corporate trustee could be appointed as the receiver and manager of the trust property. The court examined the trust deed and found that there was no requirement for the trustee to notify the trustee of its removal. The court also found that the sole shareholder's attempts to replace the trust deed, the trustee, and to circumvent the court’s earlier refusal to terminate the liquidation were improper. The court held that the liquidator could be appointed as the receiver and manager of the trust property, and that the sole shareholder's actions were an attempt to circumvent the court’s earlier decision.

The court’s reasoning was that the liquidator of the corporate trustee could be appointed as the receiver and manager of the trust property, as there was no requirement for the trustee to notify the trustee of its removal. The court found that the sole shareholder's attempts to replace the trust deed, the trustee, and to circumvent the court’s earlier refusal to terminate the liquidation were improper. The court held that the liquidator's appointment was necessary to protect the interests of the creditors and beneficiaries of the trust property. The court also found that the sole shareholder's actions were an attempt to circumvent the court’s earlier decision, and that such actions were not in the best interests of the creditors and beneficiaries.

The court appointed the liquidator as the receiver and manager of the trust property. The court found that the sole shareholder's attempts to replace the trust deed, the trustee, and to circumvent the court’s earlier refusal to terminate the liquidation were improper. The court held that the liquidator's appointment was necessary to protect the interests of the creditors and beneficiaries of the trust property. The court also found that the sole shareholder's actions were an attempt to circumvent the court’s earlier decision, and that such actions were not in the best interests of the creditors and beneficiaries.