Legal Research
Cases
Vink v Tuckwell

Vink v Tuckwell

Case [2008] VSC 100 1 April 2008

Creditors voluntary liquidation

Inherent jurisdiction

Standing

Corporate Law & Governance

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

CORPORATIONS LIST

No 6759 of 2007

MARTIN VINK	Plaintiff
v
COLIN ROLAND TUCKWELL (AS LIQUIDATOR OF CORPORATE INTERIOR CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD)(IN LIQUIDATION)(ACN 068 492 204)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	ROBSON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 & 26 February 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 April 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Vink v Tuckwell
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 100

---

CORPORATIONS LAW– Creditors voluntary liquidation - Complaint about conduct of the liquidator under s 536(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) –Application for an inquiry into the conduct of a liquidator – Application by the liquidator for dismissal of application for an inquiry under inherent jurisdiction of the court on the grounds application for an inquiry was inevitably bound to fail – Standing of complainant to seek an inquiry where complainant has no interest in the liquidation – Initial onus on complainant to establish prima facie case that the matters complained of warrant an inquiry – Discretion of court to order an inquiry if prima facie case made out – Section 536 Corporations Act 2001

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Inherent jurisdiction to dismiss application for an inquiry under s 536 of Corporations Act 2001– Would the application inevitably fail - Procedure required to seek an order for an inquiry under s 536 of the Corporations Act 2001 - Affidavit required in support of application under Rule 2.4 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2003 - Affidavit to state the facts in support of the application – Affidavit on personal knowledge and information and belief – Rule 7.11 and rule 23.01 Supreme Court Rules.

ASIC v Edge [2007] VSC 170
Belvista Pty Ltd v Murphy (1993) 11 ACSR 628
Brinson v Rocla Concrete Pipes [1982] 2 NSWLR 937
Burns Philp Investment Pty Ltd v Dickens (1993) 11 ACLC 272
Burns Philp Investment Pty Ltd v Dickens (No 2) (1993) 10 ACSR 626
CCA v Harvey [1980] VR 669
Dey v Victorian Railways Cmrs (1948) 78 CLR 62
Knight v Bell [2000] VSCA 48
Leon v Your-O-Matic Ltd [1966] 1 WLR 1450
Leslie v Hennessy (2001) FCA 371
Magarditch v ANZ Banking Corporation (1999) 17 ACLC 424
Naumoski v Parbery [2002] NSWSC 1097
Northbourne Developments Pty Ltd v Reiby Chambers Pty Ltd (1989) 1 ACSR 79
Nut Trading Co Aust Pty Ltd v KKL (Kangaroo Line) Pty Ltd (1997) 25 ACSR 25
O’Toole v Mitcham (1977) 2 ACLR 471
R v Smith [1995] 1 VR 10
Re A Debtor (No 400 of 1940) [1949] Ch 236
Re Biposo Pty Ltd (1995) 120 FLR 399
Re Day & Dent Constructions Pty Ltd (1984) 9 ACLR 319
ReFermoyle Pty Ltd (1982) 6 ACLR 640
ReHadfield Steelworks Ltd (1980) ACLC 40-623
Re Peters; Ex parte Lloyd (1882) 47 LT 64
Young v Parbery [2002] NSWC 1097

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr Vink appeared in person	None
For the Defendant	Mr S Marantelli

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 Vink v Tuckwell

Details

AGLC: Vink v Tuckwell [2008] VSC 100
Case: [2008] VSC 100
Decision Date: 1 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Vink v Tuckwell, the matter before the Court was a complaint about the conduct of the liquidator under section 536(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The case involved an application for an inquiry into the conduct of a liquidator, with the liquidator subsequently applying for dismissal of the application under the court's inherent jurisdiction, arguing that the application was inevitably bound to fail. The central issue before the Court was whether it had the inherent jurisdiction to dismiss an application for an inquiry under section 536 of the Corporations Act 2001, and what procedure was required to seek an order for an inquiry under that section.

The Court considered the principles surrounding the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to dismiss an application for an inquiry. It held that the initial onus was on the complainant to establish a prima facie case that the matters complained of warranted an inquiry. If such a case was made out, the Court would then exercise its discretion to order an inquiry. The Court noted that an application would inevitably fail if it was clear that the applicant had no reasonable prospects of success. The Court also considered the requirements of the affidavit to support the application for an inquiry, stating that it must be based on personal knowledge and information and belief. The Court found that the application for an inquiry did not establish a prima facie case and was inevitably bound to fail, leading to the dismissal of the application.

The Court subsequently made orders dismissing the application for an inquiry and awarding costs to the liquidator. This decision underscores the importance of establishing a prima facie case for an inquiry into the conduct of a liquidator, and highlights the Court's discretion in ordering such an inquiry. The case provides useful guidance for liquidators and applicants seeking an inquiry into their conduct, emphasising the need for a robust and well-founded application.

Orders