Sheahan v Ren

Case [2017] FCA 1163


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sheahan v Ren [2017] FCA 1163

File number: SAD 302 of 2016
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 29 September 2017
Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Consideration of an application seeking summary judgment pursuant to r 26.01(1)(e) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – where the respondent was a director of each company and each company was insolvent at the time a debt was incurred or became insolvent by incurring the debt – where neither company had any books or records – where the companies had no assets and had not commenced any business activity – where the respondent either was aware, or a reasonable person in his position would be aware that the companies would become insolvent on incurring the debts – where the amount claimed by the applicants reflects the loss or damage within s 588M of the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth).

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Consideration of an application seeking default judgment pursuant to r 5.23(2)(b) or (2)(c) of the Rules – where the respondent failed to comply with an order of the Court and did not attend a number of hearings without explanation.

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 286, 588E, 588G, 588M

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 5.22, 5.23, 26.01

Cases cited: Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118
Date of hearing: 29 June 2017
Registry: South Australia
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 48
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr J Cudmore
Solicitor for the Applicants: Cosoff Cudmore Knox
Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear

ORDERS

SAD 302 of 2016
BETWEEN:

JOHN SHEAHAN AND IAN RUSSELL LOCK AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF TERRITORY HEAVY INDUSTRIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 149 466 142

First Applicant

JOHN SHEAHAN AND IAN RUSSELL LOCK AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF CASCADE INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 147 019 654

Second Applicant

AND:

JERRY REN

Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 SEPTEMBER 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicants be heard on interest before final judgment is entered.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BESANKO J:

  1. The two applicants in this proceeding are Mr John Sheahan and Mr Ian Russell Lock as joint and several liquidators of Territory Heavy Industries Limited (in liquidation) (Territory) and Mr John Sheahan and Mr Ian Russell Lock as joint and several liquidators of Cascade Infrastructure Pty Limited (in liquidation) (Cascade).  On 30 July 2015, a company called Opus International Consultants (Australia) Pty Limited (Opus) lodged petitions for the winding up of Territory and Cascade and, on 23 September 2015, this Court made a winding up order in relation to each company and appointed Messrs Sheahan and Lock liquidators of each…

Continue reading Sheahan v Ren

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sheahan v Ren [2017] FCA 1163
Case
[2017] FCA 1163
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sheahan v Ren involved an application for summary judgment by the applicants against the respondent, who was a director of two insolvent companies. The applicants sought to recover debts incurred by the companies, which became insolvent upon incurring these debts. The companies had no books or records, no assets, and had not engaged in any business activities. The applicants claimed that the respondent was aware, or should have been aware, that the companies would become insolvent upon incurring the debts, and that the amount claimed reflected the loss or damage as per section 588M of the Corporations Act 2001. Additionally, the applicants sought default judgment against the respondent for failing to comply with a court order and for not attending scheduled hearings without explanation.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants could be granted summary judgment under rule 26.01(1)(e) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 and section 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, and whether default judgment could be granted under rule 5.23(2)(b) or (2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The court had to consider whether the respondent’s actions warranted the imposition of default judgment due to his failure to comply with court orders and to attend hearings.

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie case against the respondent based on the insolvency of the companies and the respondent's awareness of the impending insolvency. The court noted that the respondent's failure to comply with the court's orders and to attend hearings without explanation justified the imposition of default judgment. Consequently, the court granted the application for summary judgment and ordered that the applicants be heard on interest before final judgment was entered. The court also noted that default judgment would be appropriate due to the respondent's non-compliance and non-attendance.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicants be heard on interest before final judgment is entered.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.