Peter Hillig in his capacity as liquidator of ACN 092 745 330 Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) & Anor v Battaglia & Ors [2018] NSWCA 67
Further evidence on appeal directly contradicted Mr Battaglia’s evidence that certain payments were remuneration; as credit was central to primary findings, it was not possible for the appellate court to re-determine factual issues without rehearing all evidence and allowing a response. Accordingly, the primary judgment was set aside and a new trial ordered on all issues.
- Parties
- First Appellant: Peter Hillig in his capacity as official liquidator of ACN 092 745 330 Pty Ltd (In Liquidation); Second Appellant: ACN 092 745 330 Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) formerly known as SX Projects (NSW) Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Vince Bruno Battaglia; Second Respondent: Karen Lee Battaglia; Third Respondent: Fellmane Pty Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 10 April 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal – Post Trial Appeal From Equity Division
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; new trial ordered
- Legal Topics
- Director Duties, Liquidator Powers, Unreasonable Director Related Transactions, Voidable Transactions, Business Records Exception to Hearsay, Credit of Witnesses, Adducing Further Evidence on Appeal
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Hillig in his capacity as official liquidator of ACN 092 745 330 Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)
First Appellant
ACN 092 745 330 Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) formerly known as SX Projects (NSW) Pty Ltd
Second Appellant
Vince Bruno Battaglia
First Respondent
Karen Lee Battaglia
Second Respondent
Fellmane Pty Ltd
Third Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal – Post Trial Appeal From Equity Division
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Mr Battaglia was a de facto director of 330Co prior to formal appointment
- 2 Whether Mr Battaglia directed, authorised or caused impugned payments to be made
- 3 Whether the Schedule B and C payments had a cogent commercial explanation as remuneration
Ratio Decidendi
Further evidence on appeal directly contradicted Mr Battaglia’s evidence that certain payments were remuneration; as credit was central to primary findings, it was not possible for the appellate court to re-determine factual issues without rehearing all evidence and allowing a response. Accordingly, the primary judgment was set aside and a new trial ordered on all issues.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Set aside the judgment and orders below made on 17 March 2017.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment