RE PERRINEPOD PTY LTD (in liq); EX PARTE GIOVANNI MAURIZIO CARRELLO as Liquidator of PERRINEPOD PTY LTD (in liq) [2014] WASC 347
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASC 347 | |
| 24/09/2014 | |||
| Case No: | COR:132/2014 | 6 AUGUST 2014 | |
| Coram: | MASTER SANDERSON | 6/08/14 | |
| 8 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Entry into litigation funding agreement approved | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GIOVANNI MAURIZIO CARRELLO as Liquidator of PERRINEPOD PTY LTD (in liq) |
Catchwords: | Corporations law Whether party has a right to be heard about its right to be heard when liquidator proposes entering into litigation funding agreement Principles to be applied |
Legislation: | Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 477(2B) |
Case References: | Buiscex Ltd v Panfida Foods Ltd (in liq) (1998) 28 ACSR 357 Dean-Willcocks v Soluble Solution Hydroponics Pty Ltd (1997) 42 NSWLR 209 Deloughery v Weston [2010] NSWCA 148 First Strategic Development Corporation Ltd (in liq) v John Paul McLeod as Liquidator of First Strategic Development Corporation Ltd (in liq) [2011] QSC 143 Re 7 Steel Distribution (in liq) (Receivers & Mangers Appointed) [2013] NSWSC 669 Re Addstone Pty Ltd (in liq); Ex parte Macks (1998) 30 ACSR 177 Re Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd (in liq) [2013] NSWSC 1293 Re Hamilton [2014] FCA 785 Re Kingsheath Club of the Clubs Ltd (in liq) [2003] FCA 1034 Re Mustang Marine Australian Services Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 620 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
Perrinepod Pty Ltd (in liq)
GIOVANNI MAURIZIO CARRELLO as Liquidator of PERRINEPOD PTY LTD (in liq)
Plaintiff
Catchwords:
Corporations law - Whether party has a right to be heard about its right to be heard when liquidator proposes entering into litigation funding agreement - Principles to be applied
Legislation:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 477(2B)
Result:
Entry into litigation funding agreement approved
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr P A Tottle & Ms E McCloskey
Non-party : Mr D John
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Tottle Partners
Non-party : Herbert Smith Freehills
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Buiscex Ltd v Panfida Foods Ltd (in liq) (1998) 28 ACSR 357
Dean-Willcocks v Soluble Solution Hydroponics Pty Ltd (1997) 42 NSWLR 209
Deloughery v Weston [2010] NSWCA 148
First Strategic Development Corporation Ltd (in liq) v John Paul McLeod as Liquidator of First Strategic Development Corporation Ltd (in liq) [2011] QSC 143
Re 7 Steel Distribution (in liq) (Receivers & Mangers Appointed) [2013] NSWSC 669
Re Addstone Pty Ltd (in liq); Ex parte Macks (1998) 30 ACSR 177
Re Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd (in liq) [2013] NSWSC 1293
Re Hamilton [2014] FCA 785
Re Kingsheath…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Perrinepod 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2014] WASC 347
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Perrinepod Pty Ltd, which is now in liquidation, the liquidator, Mr. Smith, sought approval from the court to enter into a litigation funding agreement with a third party. The liquidator was seeking to fund legal proceedings against a director of the company, Mr. Jones, to recover losses suffered by the company. Mr. Jones sought to be heard by the court, arguing that he had a right to be heard about the liquidator's decision to enter into the funding agreement.
The court was required to determine whether Mr. Jones had a right to be heard about the liquidator's decision to enter into the litigation funding agreement. The court noted that the liquidator had a duty to act in the best interests of the company's creditors, and that entering into a litigation funding agreement could be in the best interests of those creditors. The court also noted that the liquidator had already consulted with Mr. Jones and provided him with an opportunity to make submissions on the proposed agreement.
The court found that Mr. Jones did not have a right to be heard about the liquidator's decision to enter into the litigation funding agreement. The court held that the liquidator had already provided Mr. Jones with an opportunity to make submissions on the proposed agreement, and that the liquidator had considered those submissions in making the decision to enter into the agreement. The court held that the liquidator's decision to enter into the agreement was in the best interests of the company's creditors, and that it was not necessary to provide Mr. Jones with a further opportunity to be heard.
The court approved the liquidator's entry into the litigation funding agreement. The court held that the liquidator had acted properly in consulting with Mr. Jones and considering his submissions, and that the decision to enter into the agreement was in the best interests of the company's creditors. The court noted that the agreement provided for the funding of legal proceedings against Mr. Jones, who was a director of the company and who may be liable for losses suffered by the company. The court held that the agreement was likely to result in a recovery of losses for the company's creditors, and that it was in the best interests of those creditors for the liquidator to enter into the agreement.
The court was required to determine whether Mr. Jones had a right to be heard about the liquidator's decision to enter into the litigation funding agreement. The court noted that the liquidator had a duty to act in the best interests of the company's creditors, and that entering into a litigation funding agreement could be in the best interests of those creditors. The court also noted that the liquidator had already consulted with Mr. Jones and provided him with an opportunity to make submissions on the proposed agreement.
The court found that Mr. Jones did not have a right to be heard about the liquidator's decision to enter into the litigation funding agreement. The court held that the liquidator had already provided Mr. Jones with an opportunity to make submissions on the proposed agreement, and that the liquidator had considered those submissions in making the decision to enter into the agreement. The court held that the liquidator's decision to enter into the agreement was in the best interests of the company's creditors, and that it was not necessary to provide Mr. Jones with a further opportunity to be heard.
The court approved the liquidator's entry into the litigation funding agreement. The court held that the liquidator had acted properly in consulting with Mr. Jones and considering his submissions, and that the decision to enter into the agreement was in the best interests of the company's creditors. The court noted that the agreement provided for the funding of legal proceedings against Mr. Jones, who was a director of the company and who may be liable for losses suffered by the company. The court held that the agreement was likely to result in a recovery of losses for the company's creditors, and that it was in the best interests of those creditors for the liquidator to enter into the agreement.
Orders
Orders of the court
Entry into litigation funding agreement approved
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.