FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CORPORATIONS LAW – s 588FF(3) Corporations Law – extension of time to bring an application under s 588FE - factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion given by s 588FF(3) - sufficiency of affidavit explaining the need for an extension of time – whether the liquidator has demonstrated grounds to justify an extension of time – whether prejudice results from the grant of an extension
Corporations Law, s 462(2), s 588FE, s 588FF, s 588FF(3), s 1316
Australian Securities Commission v AS Nominees Ltd (1995) 133 ALR 1 (referred to)
Oates v Attorney-General (Cth) (Cth) (1998) 156 ALR 1 (applied)
Hunter Valley Development Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (1984) 58 ALR 305 (referred to)
Demondrille Nominees Pty Ltd v Shirlaw (1997) 25 ACSR 535 (referred to)
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 (referred to)
BARRY ANTHONY TAYLOR (Applicant) v WODEN CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ACN 008 403 763 (Respondent)
AG3003 of 1998
FINN J
CANBERRA
23 SEPTEMBER 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
AG3003 of 1998
BETWEEN:
BARRY ANTHONY TAYLOR
APPLICANTAND:
WODEN CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ACN 008 403 763
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 SEPTEMBER 1998
WHERE MADE:
CANBERRA
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
the application for an extension of time until 17 November 1998 be allowed
the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
AG3003 of 1998
BETWEEN:
BARRY ANTHONY TAYLOR
APPLICANTAND:
WODEN CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ACN 008 403 763
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
FINN J
DATE:
23 SEPTEMBER 1998
PLACE:
CANBERRA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Under s 588FF of the Corporations Law a court, on the application of a company’s liquidator, is empowered to make a variety of orders if it is satisfied that a transaction of the company is voidable because of s 588FE. The time limited for bringing such an application is within three years after “the relation-back day” – for present purposes that being the day on which the application for the winding up order was filed – or within such longer period as the court orders on the application of the liquidator “within those 3 years”: s 588FF(3).
On 27 July 1995 the Australian Securities Commission applied to this court under s 462(2) of the Corporations Law for winding up orders against Ample Funds Ltd (“Ample”) and AS Nominees Ltd (“ASN”). These companies conducted businesses as trustees respectively of unit trusts and superannuation trusts: see generally Australian Securities Commission v AS Nominees Ltd (1995) 133 ALR 1. Winding up orders were made on 17 November 1995 after a twenty-one day trial conducted episodically over four months. The present applicant was then appointed liquidator of both companies. Mismanagement and impropriety on a large scale were revealed in those proceedings. Beneficiary investors in the various trusts have sustained heavy losses.…
Continue reading Taylor v Woden Constructions Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Taylor v Woden Constructions Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1228
- Case
- [1998] FCA 1228
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Applicant had provided adequate grounds for the requested extension of time. This involved assessing the reasonableness of the delay, the impact of the delay on the Respondent, and the merits of the Applicant's reasons for the extension. The Court also had to consider whether the Applicant had acted in good faith and whether there were any mitigating circumstances that warranted the extension.
The Court determined that the Applicant had provided sufficient justification for the extension of time. It found that the reasons presented by the Applicant were reasonable and that there had been no significant prejudice to the Respondent as a result of the delay. The Court emphasised the importance of the Applicant’s efforts to mitigate the effects of the delay and concluded that the extension was warranted under the circumstances. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was allowed. However, the Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent’s costs associated with the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
the application for an extension of time until 17 November 1998 be allowed
2.
the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs
Note:
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.