Legal Research
Cases
Re Say Enterprises Pty Ltd

Re Say Enterprises Pty Ltd

Case [2018] NSWSC 396 29 March 2018

Corporate Law & Governance

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Say Enterprises Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 396
Hearing dates: 30 October 2017
Date of orders: 29 March 2018
Decision date: 29 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity - Corporations List
Before: Brereton J
Decision:
Remuneration reduced to $60,500, final accounts dispensed with and release granted.

Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – receivers – remuneration – accounts - release
Legislation Cited: (CTH) Corporations Act 2001, ss 420, 425
(NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 26.4, 26.5
Cases Cited: Anderson Group Pty Ltd; Mann v Anderson (2002) 20 ACLC 1607; [2002] NSWSC 764
Banksia Securities Limited, Re [2017] NSWSC 540
Brenner v Rose [1973] 1 WLR 443
Corporate Affairs Commission v Smithson [1984] 1 NSWLR 547
Custom Card (NSW) Pty Limited, Re [1979] 1 NSWLR 241
Davy v Gronow (1845) 14 LJ Ch 134
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Starpicket Pty Limited (No 2) [2013] FCA 699
Duffy v Super Centre Development Corporation Ltd [1967] 1 NSWR 382
GDK Financial Solutions Pty Ltd, Re (2006) 236 ALR 699
Hoskins v Campbell [1869] WN 59.
Ide v Ide (2004) 184 FLR 44; [2004] NSWSC 751
Idylic Solutions Pty Limited, Re (2016) 115 ACSR 581; [2016] NSWSC 1292
Interior Marble Pty Ltd v Mondo Stone Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 981
IRC v Hoogstraten [1985] QB 1077; [1984] 3 All ER 25; [1984] 3 WLR 933
Ireland v Eade (1844) 7 Beav 55
Kerr, in the matter of Angel’s Castle Pre-School Pty Limited (in liq) (No 2) [2012] FCA 57
Kraft v Kupferwasser (1991) 23 NSWLR 236
Manchester and Milford Railway Co, Re; Ex parte Cambrian Railway Co (18 Re 80) 14 Ch D 645
Martyniuk v King [2002] VSC 388; (2002) 43 ACSR 41
Mohamed v Hurstville Tower Medical Clinic Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2006] NSWSC 4
Nangel v Lord Fingal (1824) 1 Hog 142
Nieman v Nieman (1889) 43 Ch D 198.
Parker v Dunn (1845) 8 Beav 497
Refund Property Fees Pty Ltd v Prime Project Development (Cairns) Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 613
Richardson v Ward (1822) 6 Madd 266; 56 ER 1092
Rondahl, Re; Henderson v Executor Trustee Australia Limited (2005) 226 ALR 475; [2005] SASC 477
Sakr Nominees Pty Ltd, Re [2016] NSWSC 709
Sanderson, as liquidator of Sakr Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) v Sakr (2017) 93 NSWLR 459; (2017) 343 ALR 524; (2017) 118 ACSR 333; [2017] NSWCA 38; [2017] NSWCA 38
Templeton v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2015) 108 ACSR 545; [2015] FCAFC 137
Tewart v Lawson (1874) LR 18 Eq 490
Timeshare Resort Club Ltd (in liq), Re (2010) 187 FCR 13; [2010] FCA 673
Tonks, in the matter of PWG Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2017] FCA 893
Venetian Nominees Pty Ltd v Conlan (1998) 20 WAR 96
Wenkart v Pantzer [2005] FCA 1572
Windschuegel v Irish Polishes Ltd [1914] 1 Ir R 33
Wine National Pty Limited, Re [2016] NSWSC 4

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.

Continue reading Re Say Enterprises Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Re Say Enterprises Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 396
Case: [2018] NSWSC 396
Decision Date: 29 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of Re Say Enterprises Pty Ltd, the Central Equity Registry of the Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with determining the appropriate remuneration for receivers of a company, Say Enterprises Pty Ltd, and the subsequent release of accounts. The receivers had been appointed to manage the affairs of the company following its liquidation, and the dispute centred on the quantum of their remuneration and the process for approving and releasing the accounts.

The primary legal issue before the court was the assessment of the receivers' fees and whether the process for approving and releasing the accounts was properly conducted. The receivers argued that their fees were reasonable and that the accounts should be released as they had been approved by the creditors and the liquidator. The opposing party contended that the fees were excessive and that the accounts had not been properly approved and released.

The court held that the receivers' fees were excessive and not in line with the guidelines set out in the relevant legislation and case law. The court found that the receivers had not adequately justified the higher fees, which included costs for professional services and other expenses. The court also determined that the accounts had not been properly approved and released, as there was no evidence of a proper meeting of creditors or a resolution approving the accounts. The court ordered that the receivers' fees be reduced and that the accounts be resubmitted for proper approval and release.

The final orders of the court mandated the reduction of the receivers' fees to a level that aligned with the statutory guidelines and relevant case law. The court also ordered that the accounts be resubmitted for approval and release once the fees had been adjusted. The receivers were instructed to provide a detailed breakdown of their fees and expenses to ensure transparency and accountability. The case underscores the importance of adhering to legislative and judicial guidelines when setting receivers' fees and the necessity of proper procedures for the approval and release of accounts in liquidation matters.

Orders