Techray Pty Ltd v Baker Summary

[TECHRAY PTY LTD v BAKER & Ors]
[2000] QCA 50
COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA

Appeal No 1704 of 2000

TECHRAY PTY LTD Appellant (Defendant)

and

MICHAEL VINCENT BAKER and
STEVEN JAMES JOHNSON TRADING AS
BAKER JOHNSON SOLICITORS Respondents (Plaintiffs)

BRISBANE

..DATE 29/02/2000

JUDGMENT

PINCUS JA: These applications are for a stay and for leave to appeal. They are made by a company in liquidation Techray Pty Ltd and it does not appear that the liquidator of Techray who, of course, at this stage represents the company has been told about what is happening today.

The difficulty, which I mentioned earlier, that it is necessary for anyone who purports to sue on behalf of Techray other than the liquidator to obtain the leave of the Court still exists; but I think that as the respondents and Mr Morris, who apparently promoted these applications, agree that they should be dismissed, it should be done.

Now, Mr Morris, I am told, is in Court and he agrees to pay the costs of these two applications to be assessed on an indemnity basis and I am prepared to make that order also.

Therefore the orders will be as follows:

(1)The application to stay proceedings to wind up the appellant company which was filed on
25 February 2000 and the application for leave to appeal purporting to be filed on behalf of the appellant company on 25 February 2000 are both dismissed;

(2)Mr Theo Morris of 202 Simpsons Road, Elanora be ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the applications I have mentioned, to be assessed on an indemnity basis.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Techray Pty Ltd, a company in liquidation, sought a stay and leave to appeal against an application by Michael Vincent Baker and Steven James Johnson, trading as Baker Johnson Solicitors, to wind up the company. The Court of Appeal, presided over by Pincus JA, heard the matter. The appellant, Techray Pty Ltd, was represented by Mr Theo Morris, who did not have the leave of the Court, as required when suing on behalf of a company in liquidation. Despite this, the respondents and Mr Morris agreed that the applications should be dismissed.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applications for a stay and leave to appeal could proceed without the leave of the Court, given that the liquidator of Techray Pty Ltd had not been informed about the proceedings. Additionally, the court had to determine whether Mr Morris had the necessary authority to represent Techray Pty Ltd in these applications.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the applications should be dismissed, as they were made without the necessary leave of the Court. The court found that Mr Morris, who promoted these applications, agreed to pay the costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis. The court further ordered that Mr Morris should pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the applications.

The court issued orders dismissing the application to stay proceedings to wind up the appellant company and the application for leave to appeal. Additionally, the court ordered that Mr Theo Morris pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the applications, to be assessed on an indemnity basis.

Techray Pty Ltd v Baker

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established