ASIC v Sydney Investment House Equities Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] NSWSC 1263

ASIC v Sydney Investment House Equities Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] NSWSC 1263

The Court refused the adjournment because there was an urgent need for intervention concerning the trusts, the matters raised were within the knowledge of Mr Goulding as the mind behind each of the companies, and the balance of convenience required ASIC's application to be heard that day notwithstanding the difficulties caused by short notice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application Concerning Appointment of a Provisional Liquidator, Appointment of a Receiver to Trusts, or Alternatively an Asset Protection Order / Application by the 3rd, 4th, 6th Defendants/respondents and 11th Respondent to Adjourn Asic's Application
Outcome
Adjournment refused.
Legal Topics
['adjournments' 'short Service' 'provisional Liquidator' 'receiver and Manager' 'asset Protection Orders' 'trust Assets']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations' 'equity'] ['adjournments' 'short Service' 'provisional Liquidator' 'receiver and Manager' 'asset Protection Orders' 'trust Assets']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application Concerning Appointment of a Provisional Liquidator, Appointment of a Receiver to Trusts, or Alternatively an Asset Protection Order / Application by the 3rd, 4th, 6th Defendants/respondents and 11th Respondent to Adjourn Asic's Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether ASIC's urgent application should be adjourned because the defendants/respondents had inadequate time to deal with the material served in support of it." 'Whether undertakings offered by Mr Goulding and AJEG sufficiently answered the need for urgent intervention concerning the trusts.' 'Whether alleged breaches of earlier Court orders and pending property transactions justified hearing the application immediately.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the adjournment because there was an urgent need for intervention concerning the trusts, the matters raised were within the knowledge of Mr Goulding as the mind behind each of the companies, and the balance of convenience required ASIC's application to be heard that day notwithstanding the difficulties caused by short notice.

Court Disposition

Adjournment refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for an adjournment was refused.']