Wallabah Pty Ltd v Navillo Pty Ltd - [1997] FCA 142

CATCHWORDS

CORPORATIONS LAW - application for leave under ss440D and 440J of the Corporations Law

Corporations law sections 440D and 440J

Grenadier Constructions No 2 Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACLC 460
J & B Records v Brashs Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACLC 534
Foxcroft v The Ink Group Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACLC 1063
Roder Zelt-Und Hallenkonstruktionen GMBH v Rosedown Park Pty Ltd & Anor 13 ACLC 776
Vital Finance Corporation Pty Ltd v Abor and Ors (1994) 12 ACLC 973

WALLABAH PTY LTD v NAVILLO PTY LTD and LUIGI GALUPPO
VG No. 3015 of 1997

Olney J
Melbourne
5 March 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION No VG 3015 of 1997

BETWEEN:

WALLABAH PTY LTD

Applicant

-and-
NAVILLO PTY LTD

First Respondent

LUIGI GALUPPO

Second Respondent

Coram: Olney J

Place: Melbourne

Date: 5 March 1997

MINUTE OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:-

1.The applicant's motion for leave under sections 440D and 440J of the Corporations Law be dismissed.
2.The costs of hearing the motion on 28 February 1997 be reserved.
3.The directions hearing be adjourned to 8 May 1997 at 9.30am.

NOTE:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION No VG 3015 of 1997

BETWEEN:

WALLABAH PTY LTD

Applicant

-and-
NAVILLO PTY LTD

First Respondent

LUIGI GALUPPO

Second Respondent

Coram: Olney J

Place: Melbourne

Date: 5 March 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 28 February 1977 I reserved my decision on the applicant's motion for leave pursuant to s 440D of the Corporations Law to continue the proceedings against the first respondent and for leave pursuant to s 440J to enforce a guarantee against the second respondent.

The short facts are that the first respondent carried on business as a licensed restaurant at King's Cross. The second respondent has at all relevant times been a director of the first respondent and at present it appears that he is the only director. The applicant has a charge over the property of the first respondent to secure money said to have been advanced to the first respondent. The second respondent is said to have guaranteed the liability of the first respondent to the applicant but has put in issue the validity of the guarantee and the amounts (if any) which are due under the charge and the guarantee. In exercising its powers under the charge the applicant has appointed administrators of the first respondent. In this proceeding the first respondent seeks, inter alia, judgment against the first respondent for the amount said to be secured and against the second respondent for the amount said to be due under the guarantee.

The only judicial authorities dealing with the construction and application of ss 440D and 440J are decisions of single judges and none is directly on point but such authority as there is, coupled with what was said in the explanatory memorandum when the relevant bill was…

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 Wallabah Pty Ltd v Navillo Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Wallabah Pty Ltd v Navillo Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 142
Case: [1997] FCA 142
Decision Date: 5 March 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wallabah Pty Ltd v Navillo Pty Ltd, the applicant, Wallabah, sought leave under sections 440D and 440J of the Corporations Law to continue proceedings against the first respondent, Navillo, and to enforce a guarantee against the second respondent, Luigi Galuppo. Navillo, a licensed restaurant, had appointed administrators due to financial difficulties, and Wallabah, as the chargee, had secured a charge over Navillo's property. Luigi Galuppo, a director of Navillo, disputed the validity and amount of the guarantee. The primary issue before the court was whether leave should be granted under sections 440D and 440J of the Corporations Law for Wallabah to continue the proceedings against Navillo and enforce the guarantee against Luigi Galuppo.

The court examined the relevant legal principles and precedents, finding that the statutory discretions under sections 440D and 440J are to be exercised judicially and upon the merits of each case. The court considered factors such as the appointment of administrators by Wallabah, the applicant's status as the only secured creditor, the dispute over the guarantee's validity and amount, and the limited funds available to Navillo. The court concluded that there was no basis to justify the exercise of the Court's discretion in favour of Wallabah, and thus refused leave under sections 440D and 440J. Consequently, the court dismissed Wallabah's motion for leave and reserved costs.

Orders