Sipad Holdings v Popovic, Nikola - [1995] FCA 1075

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA                  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY                 )                  No. NG3192 of 1995
GENERAL DIVISION  )

IN THE MATTER OF
SIDEX AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
(RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED)
(A.C.N. 000 828 606)

BETWEEN:SIPAD HOLDING d.d.p.o.
First Applicant
PERO VLADIC
Second Applicant

AND:NIKOLA POPOVIC
First Respondent
DRAGAN KARAC
Second Respondent

MILAN JOVICIC
Third Respondent

JOSEPH JOHN GILLES
Fourth Respondent

AUSTRALIA FURNITURE PTY LIMITED
Fifth Respondent

SIDEX AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
(RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED)
Sixth Respondent

SIPAD EXPORT IMPORT d.d.p.o.
Seventh Respondent

CORAM:      Lehane J
PLACE:        Sydney
DATE:           24 November 1995

EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LEHANE J: What I propose to do now is to give my decision in relation to the question whether, in principle, the receiver should be withdrawn or his appointment terminated and then to hear submissions on matters which will follow as a consequence.

By an order made by Beaumont J on 9 June 1995, Mr M.G. Jones was appointed as receiver and manager of the sixth respondent. The order thus made replaced certain orders made by the Court earlier in these proceedings which, among other things, had frozen certain bank accounts and imposed certain requirements in relation to the preservation and inspection of books and records of the sixth respondent.

The proceedings involved a contest as to the ownership of a majority of the shares in the sixth respondent and, therefore, the right to control its management through the appointment and removal of directors. I think it may be inferred that, given that the proceedings were of that character and given also the previous course of the proceedings, Beaumont J concluded that, pending a resolution of the contest, it was more appropriate that the sixth respondent be managed by a receiver rather than by any of the contestants. Consistently with that, his Honour's order did not limit the powers of the receiver who accordingly had all the powers conferred by s 420 of the Corporations Law.

My judgment in these proceedings, delivered on 13 November 1995, has not dealt finally with all matters in issue between the parties but it has, subject of course to any appeal, disposed of the main contest. I have held that the first applicant is the holder of the majority of the shares in the sixth respondent and I have declared to be valid certain resolutions of the members of the sixth respondent, one effect of which was to reconstitute its board of directors.

The first, second and third respondents have filed a notice of appeal against my decision and the first respondent has submitted for himself and, I think, also on behalf of the second and third respondents, that the receiver should remain in office pending the decision on the appeal.

The applicants submit that that is not an appropriate course and that the receiver's appointment should be terminated. The receiver neither supports nor opposes the termination of his appointment but submits, and I agree, that the Court should - if it terminates…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sipad Holdings v Popovic, Nikola 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: [1995] FCA 1075
Decision Date: 24 Nov 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Sipad Holdings v Popovic, Nikola, the Federal Court of Australia was asked to decide whether the appointment of a receiver for Sidex Australia Pty Limited should be terminated. The case involved a contest over the ownership of a majority of shares in Sidex Australia Pty Limited, leading to the appointment of Mr M.G. Jones as receiver and manager by an order made by Beaumont J on 9 June 1995. The applicants, Sipad Holdings and Pero Vladic, argued that the receiver's appointment should be terminated, while the respondents, Nikola Popovic, Dragan Karac, and Milan Jokic, sought to keep the receiver in office pending an appeal against the judgment that declared the applicants as the majority shareholders. The court had to determine whether the receiver's appointment should continue or be terminated, considering factors such as the costs of maintaining the receivership, the potential impact on the appeal, and the appropriateness of the receiver's role given the resolution of the main contest.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants were entitled to the benefit of the judgment in their favour and whether the respondents could establish grounds to justify the continuation of the receiver's appointment. The court applied principles similar to those used in applications for a stay pending an appeal, considering whether the circumstances justifying the receiver's initial appointment still existed and whether withdrawing the receiver would render the appeal nugatory. The court also had to consider the costs of maintaining the receivership and the potential impact on the appeal process.

In his judgment, Lehane J concluded that the applicants were prima facie entitled to the benefit of the judgment in their favour and that the respondents had not established grounds to justify the continuation of the receiver's appointment. The court found that leaving the receiver in office pending an appeal would be costly and that there were no grounds to justify the imposition of that expense or the deprivation of the control of Sidex Australia Pty Limited to which the applicants had been held to be entitled. The court proposed to make orders for the termination of the receiver's appointment, subject to the settling of appropriate conditions to protect the receiver against liabilities and to ensure that any significant changes in the company's operations or financial status were communicated to the respondents.

The court certified that the provided reasons for judgment were a true copy of the original and that the decision was made on 24 November 1995. The hearing took place in Sydney on the same date, and the applicants were represented by Mr J E Sexton, while the respondents were either self-represented or represented by Mr S G Finch and Mr M R Petrucco. The final orders of the court would terminate the receiver's appointment, subject to the agreed conditions.

Orders