Zhu v Tech Universal (HK-Macau) Development Pty Ltd

Case [2005] FCA 256

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Zhu v Tech Universal (HK-Macau) Development Pty Limited, in the matter of Tech Universal (HK-Macau) Development Pty Limited [2005] FCA 256

COURTS – cross-vesting – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) proceeding – transfer to Family Court – interests of justice

CORPORATIONS – winding up proceeding – transfer to Family Court – interests of justice

WORDS AND PHRASES – ‘interests of justice’

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1337C, 1337H

Fox Enterprises Pty Ltd v Fox (1995) 123 FLR 445; (1995) 13 ACLC 573 cited
Mattock v Mattock (1989) 97 FLR 112; (1989) 13 Fam LR 288; (1989) FLC 92-038 cited
Mourd v Atlantis Nominees Pty Ltd (1990) 100 FLR 478; (1990) 14 Fam LR 222 cited
Roff v Aqua Distributors Pty Ltd (1996) 22 ACSR 248; 14 ACLC 1769; (1996) 21 Fam LR 138 followed

IN THE MATTER OF TECH UNIVERSAL (HK-MACAU) DEVELOPMENT PTY LIMITED (ACN 075 026 710)
ZHI YUAN ZHU v TECH UNIVERSAL (HK-MACAU) DEVELOPMENT PTY LIMITED (ACN 075 026 710) AND AN YONG (LINDA AN)
NSD 77 OF 2005

GYLES J
21 MARCH 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 77 OF 2005

IN THE MATTER OF TECH UNIVERSAL (HK-MACAU) DEVELOPMENT PTY LIMITED (ACN 075 026 710)

BETWEEN:

ZHI YUAN ZHU
APPLICANT

AND:

TECH UNIVERSAL (HK-MACAU) DEVELOPMENT PTY LIMITED (ACN 075 026 710)
FIRST RESPONDENT

AN YONG (LINDA AN)
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 MARCH 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. This proceeding be transferred to the Family Court of Australia pursuant to s 1337H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

2.   The costs of the motion to transfer be the second respondent’s costs in the proceeding.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 77 OF 2005

IN THE MATTER OF TECH UNIVERSAL (HK-MACAU) DEVELOPMENT PTY LIMITED (ACN 075 026 710)

BETWEEN:

ZHI YUAN ZHU
APPLICANT

AND:

TECH UNIVERSAL (HK-MACAU) DEVELOPMENT PTY LIMITED (ACN 075 026 710)
FIRST RESPONDENT

AN YONG (LINDA AN)
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE:

21 MARCH 2005

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 11 March 2005 I ordered that this proceeding be transferred to the Family Court of Australia pursuant to s 1337H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act). I said I would publish reasons later. These are those reasons.

  2. This proceeding was commenced on 18 January 2005 by Zhi Yuan (Martin) Zhu (the applicant) seeking the winding up of Tech Universal (HK-Macau) Development Pty Limited (ACN 075 026 710) (the company) on the ground ‘that there is a deadlock between the directors and shareholders of the company’. 

  3. On 16 February 2005 an amended originating process was filed by solicitors on behalf of the applicant which nominated s 459A and s 461(c) and (k) of the Act as the basis of the application.  An Yong (Linda…

Continue reading Zhu v Tech Universal (HK-Macau) Development Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Zhu v Tech Universal (HK-Macau) Development Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 256
Case
[2005] FCA 256
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zhu brought proceedings against Tech Universal (HK-Macau) Development Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit Court, seeking a winding up order on the basis of insolvency. Tech Universal, a company incorporated in Australia, is in liquidation. The proceedings were brought under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Tech Universal filed an application to transfer the proceeding to the Family Court of Australia, pursuant to s 1337H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court was required to decide whether the proceeding should be transferred to the Family Court of Australia, and if so, whether the costs of the motion to transfer should be the second respondent's costs in the proceeding.

The court found that the proceeding involved a family dispute between the shareholders of Tech Universal, and that the transfer of the proceeding to the Family Court of Australia would be in the interests of justice. The court found that the Family Court of Australia has a particular expertise in family law matters, and that the Family Court of Australia is better suited to resolve the dispute. The court found that the transfer of the proceeding would be in the interests of justice, as it would allow the Family Court of Australia to consider the matter in its entirety, including the family relationships between the parties, and to make orders that are appropriate in the circumstances. The court found that the costs of the motion to transfer should be the second respondent’s costs in the proceeding, as the second respondent was the party seeking the transfer.

Accordingly, the court ordered that the proceeding be transferred to the Family Court of Australia pursuant to s 1337H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and that the costs of the motion to transfer be the second respondent’s costs in the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. This proceeding be transferred to the Family Court of Australia pursuant to s 1337H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

2. The costs of the motion to transfer be the second respondent’s costs in the proceeding.

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

GYLES J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GYLES J

Full text does not contain this section.