SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Williams (as liquidator of Scholz Motor Group P/L (in liq)) v Peters [2009] QCA 180
PARTIES:
JULIE WILLIAMS AS LIQUIDATOR OF SCHOLZ MOTOR GROUP PTY LTD ACN 108 820 220 (IN LIQUIDATION)
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
PETER PETERS
(defendant/respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 11628 of 2008
DC No 2876 of 2006DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
19 June 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
28 April 2009
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Muir JA and Fraser JA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Appeal allowed with costs.
2. The order made by the primary judge on 24 October 2008 be set aside.
3. Judgment be entered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant in the sum of $95,000 together with interest under s 47 Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) at 10 per cent from 26 January 2006 to 19 June 2009.
4. The respondent/defendant pay the appellant/plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the trial.
5. The respondent/defendant’s counter-claim be dismissed with costs.
Further ex tempore orders by Fraser JA at judgment delivery on 19 June 2009 -
1. That the respondent/defendant file submissions as to the costs of the trial and the appeal within seven days of the judgment date, in accordance with paragraph 37A of Practice Direction No 1 of 2005.
2. That the appellant/plaintiff file submissions as to the costs of the trial and the appeal within 14 days of the judgment date, in accordance with paragraph 37A of Practice Direction No 1 of 2005.
CATCHWORDS:
EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – CONSTITUTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF TRUSTS GENERALLY – CLASSIFICATION OF TRUSTS IN GENERAL – IMPLIED TRUSTS – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS - INDEPENDENT OF INTENTION – where respondent agreed to purchase a car from Scholz Motor Group Pty Ltd for $165,000 – where respondent paid $10,000 in cash and the balance by means of a cheque which was deposited into the company’s overdraft account – where respondent then arranged finance for the car through a finance company – where finance company paid $165,000 into the company’s overdraft account – where respondent was provided a cheque for $165,000 refunding payment of the purchase price – where cheque was dishonoured – whether a trust in respect of the monies paid by the finance company arose
BANKRUPTCY – ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY – EFFECT OF BANKRUPTCY ON ANTECEDENT TRANSACTIONS – UNDUE PREFERENCES – CONVEYANCES, TRANSFERS, PAYMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS – PAYMENTS – where appellant claimed that the respondent received $10,000 in cash and motor vehicles valuing $130,800 in reduction of the company's indebtedness to the respondent in the amount of $165,000 while the relevant company was insolvent – where it was alleged that the transaction constituted an unfair preference within the meaning of s 588FA Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – whether transaction constituted an unfair preference
BANKRUPTCY – ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY – EFFECT OF BANKRUPTCY ON ANTECEDENT TRANSACTIONS…
Continue reading Williams v Peters
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Williams v Peters [2009] QCA 180
- Case
- [2009] QCA 180
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether a trust existed over the funds paid by the finance company and if the transaction constituted an unfair preference under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the respondents had reasonable grounds to suspect the company's insolvency when they received the $10,000 cash and the motor vehicles. The primary judge had ruled that the transaction constituted an unfair preference but found that the respondents were entitled to rely on a statutory provision as they lacked reasonable grounds to suspect insolvency.
The court held that the payment of the $10,000 and the transfer of the two motor vehicles to the respondents did not amount to an unfair preference. The court reasoned that neither the respondents nor a reasonable person in their position had grounds for suspecting the company’s insolvency, thus allowing them to rely on the statutory provision. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the primary judge's order was set aside, and judgment was entered in favour of the appellant for $95,000 plus interest and costs. The respondent's counterclaim was also dismissed with costs. Additional orders regarding the costs of the trial and appeal were made in accordance with the relevant practice direction.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed with costs.
2. The order made by the primary judge on 24 October 2008 be set aside.
3. Judgment be entered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant in the sum of $95,000 together with interest under s 47 Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) at 10 per cent from 26 January 2006 to 19 June 2009.
4. The respondent/defendant pay the appellant/plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the trial.
5. The respondent/defendant’s counter-claim be dismissed with costs.
Further ex tempore orders by Fraser JA at judgment delivery on 19 June 2009 -
1. That the respondent/defendant file submissions as to the costs of the trial and the appeal within seven days of the judgment date, in accordance with paragraph 37A of Practice Direction No 1 of 2005.
2. That the appellant/plaintiff file submissions as to the costs of the trial and the appeal within 14 days of the judgment date, in accordance with paragraph 37A of Practice Direction No 1 of 2005.
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.