Steinhardt v Trenfield and Park as liquidators of Wealth Base South Coolum Pty Ltd (in liq)
Case
•
[2015] QSC 237
•19 August 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Steinhardt v Trenfield and Park as liquidators of Wealth Base South Coolum Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] QSC 237
[2015] QSC 237
19 August 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Steinhardt brought an application against Trenfield and Park, who were the liquidators of Wealth Base South Coolum Pty Ltd, to set aside a disclaimer of a lease of land held by Steinhardt from the company. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the disclaimer would cause Steinhardt a prejudice that was grossly out of proportion to the prejudice that setting aside the disclaimer would cause to the company’s creditors. The court was required to determine whether the proposed undertaking by Steinhardt to surrender the lease upon the sale of the subject lot would mitigate any prejudice to the company’s creditors.
The court considered Steinhardt’s evidence of substantial financial prejudice from the disclaimer of the lease, alongside the liquidators’ claim that setting aside the disclaimer would prevent the company’s land assets from being sold until the lease expired. Steinhardt proposed to provide an undertaking to the court to surrender the lease if and when the liquidators sold the subject lot. The court found that there was no discernible prejudice to the company’s creditors for the purposes of section 568E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by setting aside the disclaimer and allowing Steinhardt to remain in possession.
The court granted Steinhardt leave to apply under section 568E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and ordered that the disclaimer of the lease be set aside upon Steinhardt providing the specified undertaking to the court.
The court considered Steinhardt’s evidence of substantial financial prejudice from the disclaimer of the lease, alongside the liquidators’ claim that setting aside the disclaimer would prevent the company’s land assets from being sold until the lease expired. Steinhardt proposed to provide an undertaking to the court to surrender the lease if and when the liquidators sold the subject lot. The court found that there was no discernible prejudice to the company’s creditors for the purposes of section 568E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by setting aside the disclaimer and allowing Steinhardt to remain in possession.
The court granted Steinhardt leave to apply under section 568E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and ordered that the disclaimer of the lease be set aside upon Steinhardt providing the specified undertaking to the court.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Corporate Law & Governance
Legal Concepts
-
Conduct and Incidents of Winding Up
-
Disclaimer of Onerous Property
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Rohrt, in the matter of Rose Guerin and Partners Pty Ltd (in liq) v Princes Square W24NY Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 483
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
1
Progressive Mailing House Pty Ltd v Tabali Pty Ltd
[1985] HCA 14
Progressive Mailing House Pty Ltd v Tabali Pty Ltd
[1985] HCA 14