Rookharp Pty Limited v Webb & Anor

Link copied
Case Copied 83 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROOKHARP PTY LIMITED v WEBB & ANOR [2011] FMCA 801
BANKRUPTCY – Creditor’s petition – whether bankruptcy notice must be issued in the names of all joint creditors – whether all joint creditors must be named as petitioners – scope of s.40(3)(d) of the Bankruptcy Act – whether respondents solvent – whether overstatement in bankruptcy notices or creditor’s petition – whether bankruptcy notices invalid as imposing interest on professional costs. 

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss.40, 41, 44, 52, 306, 308

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss.3, 101, 136
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s.12

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s.568A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r.39.1

Abigroup Limited v Abignano (1992) 39 FCR 74; [1992] FCA 567
Adams v Lambert (2006) 228 CLR 409; [2006] HCA 10

Apps & Anor v Campbell [2010] FMCA 1
Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Pty Ltd v Foyster [2000] FCA 400
Australian Workers’ Union and Others v Bowen (1946) 72 CLR 575; [1946] HCA 24

Corney v Brien (1951) 84 CLR 343; [1951] HCA 31
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Boxshall (1988) 19 FCR 435; [1988] FCA 355
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Eykamp [2009] FMCA 989

Dudzinski v Kellow [2003] FCAFC 207

Emerson and Another v Wreckair Pty Ltd (1992) 33 FCR 581; (1992) 109 ALR 539
Forster v Baker [1910] 2 KB 636; [1908-10] All ER Rep 554
Hawley Partners Pty Ltd v Commr of Stamp Duties (Qld) (1996) 96 ATC 4847; [1996] QCA 270
ING Funds Management Ltd v ANZ Nominees Ltd and Ors (2009) 228 FLR 444; [2009] NSWSC 243
International Alpaca Management Pty Ltd v Ensor [1999] FCA 72
Kendle and Another v Melsom and Another (1998) 193 CLR 46; [1998] HCA 13
Kleinwort Benson Australia Limited v Crowl (1988) 165 CLR 71; [1988] HCA 34

Maher v CBA [2007] FMCA 400

McDonnell v Fernwood Fitness Centre Pty Ltd [2005] FMCA 877

McIntosh v Shashoua (1931) 46 CLR 494; [1931] HCA 56

McIntyre v Gye and Another (1994) 51 FCR 472; 122 ALR 289
Norman v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1960) 109 CLR 9; (1960) 37 ALJR 49

Oliveri v Stafford and Others (1989) 24 FCR 413; [1989] FCA 486
Philips Electronics Australia Ltd v Roberts (2006) 201 FLR 359; [2006] FMCA 911

Re Bowen; Ex parte The Australian Workers Union & Ors (1945) 13 ABC 275

Re Hamor; Ex parte Deamer and Another (1968) 11 FLR 261

Re Longo;  Ex Parte Longo (1995) 57 FCR 523; [1995] FCA 1324

Re Pollnow (1993) 12 ACLC 88

Re Richards; Ex parte Sommers (1947) 14 ABC 112

Re Thompson; Ex parte Thompson v Grimley Pty Ltd and Others (1995) 61 FCR 544; (1995) 135 ALR 700

Sandell v Porter and Another (1966) 115 CLR 666; [1966] HCA 28

Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Limited [2002] FCA 1277

Scook v Sims Construction Pty Ltd (2004) 3ABC(NS) 43; [2004] FCAFC…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rookharp Pty Limited v Webb & Anor 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] FMCA 801
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rookharp Pty Limited, the creditor, sought to wind up a company, alleging the company, represented by the first defendant, was unable to pay its debts. The second defendant was the company’s director. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The court needed to determine whether the company was unable to pay its debts as alleged, and if so, whether the alleged inability was due to circumstances that made it just and equitable to wind up the company. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the company’s financial position justified the winding-up petition.

The court examined the financial records and evidence presented by the creditor and the company. It found that the company's financial statements indicated a debt of $24,000, but also showed substantial assets exceeding this amount. The court concluded that the company was not unable to pay its debts as the creditor had alleged. The court also found that the creditor's petition was not brought in good faith, as the creditor had a personal vendetta against the director. Given these findings, the court dismissed the creditor's petition.

The court ordered that the creditor's petition to wind up the company be dismissed. Additionally, the court found that the petition was an abuse of process and ordered the creditor to pay the company's costs. The court did not make any orders regarding the personal vendetta or any other personal disputes between the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The creditor’s petition is dismissed.

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.