HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BRENNAN CJ, DAWSON, GAUDRON, GUMMOW AND KIRBY JJ
JOHN SHEAHAN v CARRIER AIR CONDITIONING PTY LTD and ANDREW RYRIE CAMPBELL & ANOR(Matter No A 42 of 1995); JOHN SHEAHAN v AIR CON SERVE PTY LTD and ANDREW RYRIE CAMPBELL & ANOR (Matter No A 43 of 1995)
Corporations
12 August 1997
Corporations
Corporations—Winding up—Preferences—Payments by receiver and manager to company's creditors from funds subject to debenture—Whether payments made by company or receiver—Effect of personal undertaking of liability by receiver—Nature of receiver's agency—Preferential effect where no unsecured creditors disadvantaged—Whether payments voidable preferences recoverable by liquidator. Corporations Law, ss 421(1), 565. Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss 122(1), 122(1A).
Orders
Order:
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Decision
BRENNAN CJ.
The appellant is the liquidator of TOC Pty Ltd (formerly known as T O'Connor & Sons Pty Ltd) ("TOC"), the winding up of which is deemed to have commenced on the filing of a summons for winding up on 27 May 1991. Prior to the winding up, the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ("the Bank") had appointed the respondent Mr A R Campbell ("the Receiver") receiver and manager of the undertaking and assets of TOC. The appointment was made in exercise of the Bank's powers under a mortgage debenture given by TOC to secure its liability to the Bank for advances which, at the time of the Receiver's appointment, stood at more than $4.5 million. TOC had sub- contracted with Jennings Industries Ltd for the installation of air conditioning equipment at the Adelaide Entertainment Centre and had further sub-contracted the work to the corporate respondents ("Carrier" and "Air Con"). When the Receiver was appointed, the work was incomplete. TOC had to complete the work in order to be paid by Jennings but it owed Carrier and Air Con substantial amounts for the work that they had performed up to that stage.
The Receiver was appointed by the Bank on 29 April 1991. On 2 May 1991 he issued a circular to the creditors of the Company notifying them that he had assumed control of the Company's affairs. In the circular he stated, in part:
"It is my intention to continue the company's operations for the time being. Accordingly, I would appreciate your making goods and services available to the company upon your normal trading terms and conditions when so requested by us. In this regard, would you please adopt the following procedure with regard to the company's account:
1. Close your present account as at the close of business on 28th April 1991 and promptly render a statement of the account, as at that date, direct to the company; and
2. Open a new account styled 'T. O'Connor & Sons Pty. Ltd. (Receiver & Manager Appointed) - Receiver & Manager's Account' for all transactions occurring on and after 29th April 1991. Invoices and monthly statements in respect of this account should be rendered direct to my office.
Supplies and services upon this account…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Sheahan v Carrier Air Conditioning Pty Ltd 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.
- Case
- [1997] HCA 37
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court were: (1) whether the payments were made by the company or by the receiver and manager personally; (2) the effect of the receiver's personal undertaking of liability on the nature of the agency; (3) whether payments made from debenture funds could be considered preferential where no unsecured creditors were disadvantaged; and (4) whether such payments were voidable preferences recoverable by the liquidator. The Court also considered the interplay between the Corporations Law and the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) regarding preferential payments.
The High Court reasoned that the receiver and manager, in making payments to creditors from funds subject to the debenture, was acting as an agent for the company, despite any personal undertaking of liability. The Court held that the payments were not made by the company in the ordinary course of its business, nor were they made by the receiver in a manner that would render them preferential in the absence of disadvantaged unsecured creditors. The Court affirmed that the relevant provisions of the Corporations Law and the Bankruptcy Act were designed to protect unsecured creditors, and in this instance, no such creditors were prejudiced by the payments.
The appeals were dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeals dismissed with costs.
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.