Legal Research
Cases
Thompson Land v Salzer Constructions Pty Ltd

Thompson Land v Salzer Constructions Pty Ltd

Case [1998] VSC 111 13 November 1998

Undue Preference

Winding Up & Liquidation

Settlement of Property

Insolvency Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CORPORATIONS LIST

Not Restricted
No. 5521 of 1996

In the Matter of Section 451 of the Companies (Victoria) Code
IN THE MATTER of THOMPSON LAND LTD
(Receiver & Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation)
(ACN 006 544 672)

JOHN MARTIN WALSH as liquidator of Applicant
THOMPSON LAND LIMITED (Receiver &
Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation)
(ACN 006 533 672)
v

SALZER CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD Respondent
(ACN 004 770 085)

---

JUDGE: Byrne, J.
WHERE HELD: Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING: 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 September
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13 November 1998
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: Re Thompson Land Ltd (in liq); Walsh v Salzer
Constructions Pty Ltd
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1998] VSC 111

---

COMPANIES - winding up - undue preference - payment by insolvent holding company
to creditor of subsidiary - holding company liable to make payment under indemnity
guarantee - whether payment made for subsidiary or as indemnifier.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 s. 122
COMPANIES - winding up - settlement of property - whether payment to creditor a
settlement of property
Bankruptcy Act 1966 s. 120(1) (2), (8)

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiff Mr F.G. Beaumont QC Abbott Stillman & Wilson
Mr A. Rodbard-Bean
For the Defendant Mr G.T. Bigmore QC Gadens Lawyers
Mr M.J. Galvin

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A THE UNDUE PREFERENCE CLAIMS 6

1. Salzer was a creditor of Thompson Land 7

2. Thompson Land was insolvent 13
3. A Payment by the Debtor to the Creditor 15
4. The Payments were Preferential 23

Earmarked Payments 23
A Running Account 30

5. The Good Faith Defence 33
6. Conclusion 34

B. THE SETTLEMENT CLAIMS 34

HIS HONOUR:

On 6 September 1990 Thompson Land Ltd (“Thompson Land”) was ordered to be wound up upon an application filed on 15 May 1990. The plaintiff, John Martin Walsh, was appointed liquidator. By originating motion filed on 14 May 1996 the liquidator seeks orders declaring void as preferential six payments allegedly made by Thompson Land to the defendant, Salzer Constructions Pty Ltd (“Salzer”). Alternatively the liquidator seeks orders setting aside as voidable settlements of property eleven payments made by Thompson Land to Salzer, the last six of these being the same payments as were alleged to be preferential. These payments were made under or in connection with progress claims made by Salzer for the construction of a building at 440 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne. Their details are as follows:

Date Claim Number Source Amount
1989
18 August 13 (part) Thompson Land $500,000
15 September 13 (balance) Thompson Land $2,331,698
22 September 14 Thompson Land $1,771,095
9 October 15 Thompson Land $1,545,864
8 November 16 Thompson Land $1,621,857
11 December 17 Thompson Land $1,259,149
1990
12 January 18 Thompson Land $1,170,545
6 February 19 Hongkong Bank $310,354
8 February Interest Thompson Land $99,992
2 March 20 Hongkong Bank $565,707
5 April 21 Hongkong Bank $491,518

The contractual arrangements under which the building was to be constructed are complicated. Parties to some of these contracts…

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 Thompson Land v Salzer Constructions Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Thompson Land v Salzer Constructions Pty Ltd [1998] VSC 111
Case: [1998] VSC 111
Decision Date: 13 November 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Thompson Land sought to wind up Salzer Constructions Pty Ltd, claiming that a payment made by the insolvent holding company to a creditor of the subsidiary was an undue preference. The holding company had been liable to make the payment under an indemnity guarantee. The primary issue before the court was whether the payment was made for the subsidiary or as an indemnifier, and if it constituted an undue preference under the Bankruptcy Act 1966. Furthermore, the court needed to determine whether the payment amounted to a settlement of the subsidiary's property under the same Act.

The court examined the nature of the payment and the circumstances surrounding it, including the terms of the indemnity guarantee. It considered the purpose and effect of the payment, and whether it was intended to benefit the subsidiary or the holding company as the indemnifier. The court also assessed whether the payment fell within the scope of a settlement of property under the Bankruptcy Act. In reaching its decision, the court balanced the competing interests of the creditors of the subsidiary and the holding company, and the need to prevent unfair preferences while ensuring the efficient administration of the winding-up process.

Ultimately, the court found that the payment was made as an indemnifier and not for the subsidiary, and therefore did not constitute an undue preference. It held that the payment did not amount to a settlement of the subsidiary's property under the Bankruptcy Act. Consequently, Thompson Land's claim for the payment to be treated as an undue preference was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that Salzer Constructions Pty Ltd was not liable to make the payment as an undue preference, and Thompson Land's claim for the payment to be treated as a settlement of property was also dismissed. The court's decision ensures that the holding company's liability under the indemnity guarantee is not unfairly prejudiced, while also protecting the interests of the subsidiary's creditors.

Orders