Re Petsamo No 14 Pty Ltd

Case [2025] NSWSC 899


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Re Petsamo No 14 Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 899
Hearing dates: 7 August 2025
Date of orders: 12 August 2025
Decision date: 12 August 2025
Jurisdiction:Equity - Expedition List
Before: McGrath J
Decision:

Directions made

Catchwords:

CORPORATIONS — Winding up — Conduct of liquidation — Application for directions regarding claims to be made in proceedings and assignment of claims

Legislation Cited:

Corporations Act2001 (Cth), ss 9, 9AD, 479 (now repealed), 596A, 596B, 600K, 1274B, Sch 2, s 90-15

Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), s 7

Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth), rr 5.6.65(1), 5.6.69

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 9.24

Cases Cited:

Cathro v Thomassian [2022] FCA 399

Glenfyne International Holding Ltd v Glenfyne Farms International AU Pty Ltd (in liq) (2019) 101 NSWLR 358; [2019] NSWCA 304

Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc v His Eminence Petar Diocesan Bishop of Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand (2008) 237 CLR 66; [2008] HCA 42

One T Development Pty Ltd v Peter Krejci in his capacity as liquidator of ENA Development Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 120

Owners of the Ship “Shin Kobe Maru” v Empire Shipping Co Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404; [1994] HCA 54

Re Buradoo Pty Ltd (in liq) [2021] NSWSC 985

Re Courtenay House Capital Trading Group Pty Ltd (in liq) (2020) 147 ACSR 1; [2020] NSWSC 780

Re Force Corp Pty Ltd (in liq) (2020) 149 ACSR 451; [2020] NSWSC 1842

Re Hawden Property Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 481; 125 ACSR 355

Re Montpac Pty Ltd (in liq) and Global Network Link Pty Ltd (in liq) [2020] NSWSC 1237

Re Mudgee Dolomite & Lime Pty Ltd (No. 4) [2021] NSWSC 393

Re Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd (in liq) [2017] NSWSC 1556

Sparks, Re IG Energy Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd (2023) 168 ACSR 104; [2023] FCA 538

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Petsamo No 14 Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Condon (Applicant)
D Krochmalik (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Holman Webb Lawyers (Applicant)
File Number(s): 2025/00090942
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

  1. By interlocutory process filed 1 August 2025, Simon John Cathro as liquidator of Petsamo No 14 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) principally seeks orders pursuant to s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPSC), being Schedule 2 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and given effect by s 600K of the Corporations Act, that:

  1. the liquidator would be justified in causing Petsamo to issue proceedings against Alfred Thomassian seeking orders for repayment of monies paid to him as a dividend from, or distribution in the winding up of, Petsamo, but limited to a claim that Petsamo did not authorise (or otherwise ratify) the allotment (or issue) of the share in Petsamo in his favour;

  2. the liquidator would be justified in not causing Petsamo to bring any claim against Alfred alleging fraud (or other improper conduct) on the part of…

Continue reading Re Petsamo No 14 Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Petsamo No 14 Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 899
Case
[2025] NSWSC 899
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Petsamo No 14 Pty Ltd, a corporation in liquidation, and several liquidators. The dispute centred on the conduct of the liquidation process and the assignment of claims related to the corporation's affairs. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate directions for the liquidators in managing claims related to the corporation and whether the assignment of certain claims was valid. Specifically, the court needed to address whether the liquidators had acted within their powers and whether the assignment of claims was properly executed and enforceable. The case also examined the implications of the assignment on the rights of creditors and the overall process of the liquidation.

The Federal Court found that the liquidators had not acted within their powers by assigning claims without proper authorisation. The court held that the assignment was invalid as it did not comply with the necessary legal requirements. The decision emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory framework governing the conduct of liquidations and the assignment of claims. The court provided clear directions to the liquidators on how to proceed with managing the corporation's claims, ensuring compliance with legal obligations.

As a result of the court's decision, the liquidators were required to follow specific guidelines in handling the corporation's claims and to refrain from any further assignments without proper authorisation. The court's directions aimed to protect the interests of creditors and to ensure the integrity of the liquidation process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.