Thackray v Gunns Plantations Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 39 min read
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT

LIST E

No. 01895 of 2011

IN THE MATTER of GREAT SOUTHERN MANAGERS aUSTRALIA LIMITED

(ACN 083 825 405) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liquidation)

James Gerard Thackray, Colin McIntosh Nicol and Anthony Gregory McGrath in their PERSONAL capacity AND as receivers and managers of GREAT SOUTHERN MANAGERS aUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 083 825 405) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)

(in LIQUIDAtion)

Plaintiffs
v
GUNNS PLANTATIONS LIMITED (ACN 091 232 209) & Ors (according to the schedule attached) Defendants

---

JUDGE:

Davies J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

17 August 2011

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

30 August 2011

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Thackray & Ors v Gunns Plantations Ltd & Ors (No 2)

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2011] VSC 417

---

CORPORATIONS – Receiver claims entitlement to indemnity secured by equitable lien for costs and expenses of receivership of the Responsible Entity of Managed Investment Schemes – Prima facie entitlement established – No objection – Final orders

ASSIGNMENT – Whether right to indemnity and lien arising from salvage principles assignable – Principles

DECLARATION – Parties agreed in principle to enter into assignment deed – Declaration sought about how prospective assignment deed will operate – Whether the parties have a “real interest” in the declaratory relief

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs Mr J. G. Santamaria QC with
Dr O. Bigos and
Mr M. A. J. McKillop
Minter Ellison
For the First Defendant Mr P. Fox Freehills
For the Second and Third Defendants No appearance by or on behalf of the Second and Third Defendants
For Mr Burns Mr N. P. De Young Clarendon Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BURNS OBJECTED CATEGORIES............................................................................................... 1

THE LEGAL COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDING........................................................................... 2

ASSIGNMENT................................................................................................................................... 2

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................... 4

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES................................................................................................................ 5

ANNEXURE A..................................................................................................................................... 6

HER HONOUR:

  1. This is the return of the receivers’ application for indemnification out of the scheme property (“the lienable property”) of ten managed investment schemes, secured by equitable lien, for their remuneration for work performed and expenses reasonably incurred in taking steps for the care, protection, preservation and realisation of the assets and property of those schemes.  This judgment is to be read in conjunction with the judgment delivered by the Court in Thackray & Ors v Gunns Plantations Limited & Ors.[1]

  1. Since the initial hearing, Mr Burns and the first defendant (“Gunns”) have reached agreement on the quantum of the receivers’ claim and all claimed categories of expense and remuneration, including the two categories previously the subject of objection by Mr Burns.  No further objections have been raised pursuant to paragraph 9 of the orders made on 3 August 2011.  The orders now sought are:

(a)       an order confirming the receivers’ prima facie entitlement to the amounts claimed in respect of the two categories previously objected to by Mr Burns;

(b)      final orders to the effect that the receivers are entitled to an indemnity secured by equitable lien upon…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thackray v Gunns Plantations Ltd (No 2) 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
[2011] VSC 417
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Thackray, acting as the receiver, sought to claim an indemnity secured by an equitable lien for the costs and expenses incurred during the receivership of Gunns Plantations Ltd, the Responsible Entity of Managed Investment Schemes. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue for the court to determine was whether the right to indemnity and the equitable lien arising from the principles of salvage were assignable. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the parties had a real interest in the declaratory relief sought regarding the prospective assignment deed.

The court began by examining the nature of the right to indemnity and the equitable lien, determining that these rights were indeed assignable. The court relied on established legal principles, confirming that the rights could be transferred under appropriate circumstances. The court then assessed the parties' agreement in principle to enter into an assignment deed, and whether this agreement created a real interest warranting declaratory relief. The court concluded that the prospective assignment deed would operate as the parties intended, and that the parties did have a real interest in the declaratory relief. Consequently, the court granted the relief sought by the applicant.

The final orders of the court established that the receiver had a prima facie entitlement to the indemnity secured by the equitable lien, as no objections were raised. The court further ruled that the right to indemnity and the equitable lien were assignable under the relevant legal principles. The court also declared that the prospective assignment deed would operate as intended by the parties, and that the parties had a real interest in the declaratory relief sought. These orders provided clarity and finality to the dispute, allowing the receiver to pursue the indemnity and lien as intended.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.