Thirteenth Corp Pty Ltd v State - [2004] VSC 320

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

CORPORATIONS LIST

No. 5226 of 2002

THIRTEENTH CORP PTY LTD	Plaintiff
v
SCOTT EUGENE STATE & ORS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Mandie J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6, 20, 25 August 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 September 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Thirteenth Corp Pty Ltd v State & ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 320

---

CORPORATIONS – insolvent trading – creditor’s claim – application to summarily dismiss proceeding – whether creditor had arguable case that its debt was wholly or partly unsecured

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for security for costs – delay – nature of case – circumstances justifying order

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D Denton, SC with Mr G Parncutt (6/8/04) Mr A Strahan	Comlaw
For the First and Second Defendants	Mr P Crutchfield	Gadens

HIS HONOUR:

By summons dated 2 August 2004, the first and second defendants (Scott Eugene State and Joseph Michael Zika) sought an order that this proceeding be “struck out” pursuant to rule 23.01 of Chapter 1 of the Supreme Court Rules or alternatively that the plaintiff provide security for their costs pursuant to s.1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“the Act”) (or Order 62 of the Supreme Court Rules) and certain other orders and directions.

Relevant history of the proceeding

The proceeding was commenced by writ dated 18 April 2002. The plaintiff is a company incorporated in the State of Victoria. The statement of claim alleges that by an agreement in writing dated 19 April 2000 between the plaintiff and EM Mactec Pty Ltd (“the Company”), the plaintiff agreed to lend to the Company the sum of $500,000 for a period of 35 days, thus repayable (with interest) on 23 May 2000. At the time when the Company incurred the debt, the defendants, including the first and second defendants, were directors of the Company.

The statement of claim alleged that at the time the Company incurred the debt to the plaintiff the Company was insolvent and that each of the defendant directors were aware of reasonable grounds for suspecting that the Company was insolvent (or a reasonable person in a like position would have been so aware). The statement of claim alleged that the defendants contravened s.588G of the Act, that the plaintiff had suffered loss and damage in that the principal sum and interest was not repaid on the due date or at all, and that the debt was wholly unsecured when the loss and damage was suffered. It appears from the statement of claim, and it is common ground, that on 12 May 2000 an application was made to the Supreme Court of Queensland that the Company be wound up, that on 16 June 2000 the Company appointed an administrator and that on 13 July 2000 it was duly resolved at a meeting of creditors that the Company be wound up. As a result, on 13 July 2000,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thirteenth Corp Pty Ltd v State 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: [2004] VSC 320
Decision Date: 1 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Thirteenth Corp Pty Ltd v State, the dispute arose from a creditor's claim for recovery of debts allegedly owed by Thirteenth Corp, which had gone into liquidation. The State, as the liquidator, was challenged by the creditor regarding the status of the debt, whether wholly or partly unsecured. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving this contention, including addressing an application by the State to summarily dismiss the creditor's proceeding and an application for security for costs.

The court had to determine whether the creditor had an arguable case for claiming its debt was unsecured, thereby avoiding the need for the liquidator to prove otherwise. Additionally, the court needed to consider the appropriateness of granting security for costs, evaluating factors such as the delay in the proceedings, the nature of the case, and the circumstances that might justify such an order. The court's analysis involved a careful examination of the creditor's pleadings and the merits of the case to ascertain whether there was a genuine issue to be tried regarding the security of the debt.

The court held that the creditor's claim did not establish an arguable case that the debt was unsecured, and thus, the application to summarily dismiss was granted. The creditor's pleadings were found to be inadequate in establishing the unsecured nature of the debt. Moreover, the court determined that the circumstances, including the delay in filing the proceeding and the nature of the case, justified granting security for costs to the State. The court's decision was grounded in the need to protect the liquidator from undue financial burden while ensuring that the creditor's claims were substantiated.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the creditor's proceeding and the requirement for the creditor to provide security for costs to the State. This ruling aimed to balance the interests of both parties while upholding the integrity of the insolvency process and the principles of justice.

Orders