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:
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
- AGLC
- Sheahan v Ren [2017] FCA 1163
- Case
- [2017] FCA 1163
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.