Re Ronald Kevin Cash Ex parte Ronald Kevin Cash and Ivor Worrell Re Ronald Kevin Cash Ex parte Tilemakers Australia Pty Ltd

Case

[1995] FCA 750

7 SEPTEMBER 1995


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Re Ronald Kevin Cash Ex parte Ronald Kevin Cash and Ivor Worrell Re Ronald Kevin Cash Ex parte Tilemakers Australia Pty Ltd [1995] FCA 750 [1995] FCA 750 7 SEPTEMBER 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Ronald Kevin Cash applied for a declaration regarding a creditors' meeting held on 18 July 1995, seeking to have the meeting reconvened. The application was made against Ivor Worrell, a registered trustee who was appointed as the chairman of the meeting, and Tilemakers Australia Pty Ltd, a petitioning creditor. The debtor alleged that Worrell was not eligible to chair the meeting, and that his conduct was biased against the debtor's proposal. The court was required to determine whether Worrell was eligible to chair the meeting, whether his conduct was appropriate, and whether the meeting should be reconvened.

The court held that Worrell was not eligible to chair the meeting, as he was not one of the creditors present at the meeting in person, by attorney or by proxy. The court found that the definition of "participation" in the Bankruptcy Act 1966 referred to the exercise of voting and associated rights, and that an observer was not eligible for election as chairman. However, the court held that the appointment of Worrell as chairman might amount only to an irregularity in the proceedings, and that the meeting did not need to be reconvened. The court also found that Worrell's conduct did not prevent the creditors from forming their own view on the debtor's proposal, and that the meeting had considered and made its intention with respect to the proposal plain.

The court dismissed the debtor's application and ordered that the estate of Ronald Kevin Cash be sequestrated. The petitioning creditor's costs of and incidental to the hearing on the petition and including reserved costs were to be taxed and paid as petitioning creditor's costs. The court held that both the debtor and Worrell were in error, and that the application should not have been brought. The court declined to grant either party their costs of the application, but would hear counsel further as to the question of costs.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Insolvency Law

Legal Concepts

  • Sequestration Order

  • Admissibility of Evidence

  • Limitation Periods

  • Reconvening of Meetings

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

58

Walsh v Tattersall [1996] HCA 26
One.Tel (in liq) v Watson [2009] NSWCA 282
One.Tel (in liq) v Watson [2009] NSWCA 282
Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0