Sydney Appliances P/L (in liq) v Eurolinx P/L [2001] NSWSC 230
CURRENT JURISDICTION:
Equity
FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 4175/99
HEARING DATE(S):
11/10/00, 12/10/00
JUDGMENT DATE:
30 March 2001
PARTIES :
RODERICK MACKAY SUTHERLAND (in his capacity as Liquidator of SYDNEY APPLIANCES PTY LIMITED (in liquidation)) (Plaintiff) EUROLINX PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 473 347) (Defendant)
JUDGMENT OF:
Santow J
COUNSEL :
C R C Newlinds (Plaintiff) J J Priestley (Defendant)
CORPORATIONS — Company making payments for goods supplied — Factors going to establishing "good faith" defence under s588FG(2)(a) of Corporations Law in relation to preferential payments of a concededly insolvent company — Relevance of post-dated cheques and arrangements to not bank them without telephone confirmation — Subjective and objective alternative tests for suspicion of insolvency — Running account defence under s588FA(3) of the Corporations Law — Relevance of lack of good faith in subjective sense to continuance of business relationship required for defence — Other factors affecting — Defence made out — How unfair preference calculated where running account.
Plaintiff succeeds on negating good faith defence. Defendant succeeds on running account defence.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES IN EQUITY
SANTOW J
No. 4175/99
RODERICK MACKAY SUTHERLAND (in his capacity as Liquidator of SYDNEY APPLIANCES PTY LIMITED (in liquidation)) Plaintiff
EUROLINX PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 473 347) Defendant
JUDGMENT
Table of Contents
Page
OVERVIEW AGREED FACTS AGREED ISSUES OVERALL ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Section 588FG(2) Defence Running Account Section 588FG(2) Defence Good Faith Suspicion of Insolvency
SPECIFIC FACTUAL ISSUES
What were the terms of the agreement as to payment between the parties? Was there documentation of the indulgence (Plaintiff’s case) or change of terms (Defendant’s case) and did either occur? Findings Implications of indulgence How were payments made between the parties? What was the age of the debtors? Account 174
Defendant’s response re Account 174
Account 269
Defendant’s response re Account 269
Other Accounts
Defendant’s response to remaining accounts
Other Documents later discovered
PX 11 PX12 PX13 Summing up
Conclusion
Was…
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.
Continue reading Sutherland v Eurolinx Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sutherland v Eurolinx Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 230
Case
[2001] NSWSC 230
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The dispute in Sutherland v Eurolinx Pty Ltd involved the plaintiffs, who were creditors of Eurolinx Pty Ltd, a company that had made preferential payments to them before it became insolvent. The plaintiffs sought to recover these payments under section 588FG(2)(a) of the Corporations Law, arguing that the payments were made without good faith. Eurolinx contended that the payments were made in good faith and that they were protected by the running account defence under section 588FA(3) of the Corporations Law. The court was required to determine whether Eurolinx's actions constituted good faith and whether the running account defence applied.
The court examined the concept of good faith in the context of preferential payments made by a company that was already insolvent. It considered the relevance of post-dated cheques and the arrangements not to bank them without telephone confirmation. The court also explored the subjective and objective tests for suspicion of insolvency and how they relate to the good faith defence. Furthermore, the court assessed the running account defence, including the significance of the lack of good faith in the subjective sense and other factors that could affect the defence. The court concluded that Eurolinx had acted in good faith and that the running account defence was applicable.
In determining how the unfair preference was calculated, the court focused on the nature of the running account. It found that the preferential payments were part of an ongoing business relationship, which supported the running account defence. The court held that the plaintiffs were unable to recover the preferential payments as Eurolinx had acted in good faith and the running account defence was applicable. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed. The court's decision provides clarity on the application of the good faith defence and the running account defence in cases involving preferential payments made by insolvent companies.