Murray v Feros [2019] NSWSC 260

Murray v Feros [2019] NSWSC 260

The dissolution and winding up of the pharmacy partnerships and the two pharmacy companies was just and equitable due to irreconcilable disputes among the owners, the lack of effective dispute resolution mechanisms across all entities, and the need to protect substantial business assets, with costs of the proceedings to be paid out of partnership and company assets, and the appointment of experienced insolvency practitioners as receivers and liquidators. Application for a lump sum costs order was refused as there was no good reason to depart from usual cost assessment procedures.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List / Final Orders Made After Hearing
Outcome
Orders made for dissolution of partnerships and winding up of companies; costs orders as specified; lump sum costs order refused.
Legal Topics
['dissolution and Winding Up of Partnerships' 'winding Up of Companies (just and Equitable)' 'costs in Dissolution and Winding Up Proceedings' 'appointment of Receivers and Liquidators' 'cross Vested Jurisdiction' 'scope of Partnership Business']
['partnership Law' 'corporations Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['dissolution and Winding Up of Partnerships' 'winding Up of Companies (just and Equitable)' 'costs in Dissolution and Winding Up Proceedings' 'appointment of Receivers and Liquidators' 'cross Vested Jurisdiction' 'scope of Partnership Business']

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

Equity Commercial List / Final Orders Made After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the court should order dissolution and winding up of the pharmacy partnerships and companies on just and equitable grounds' 'Appropriate form of costs orders in partnership and company winding up proceedings' 'Proper appointment of receivers and liquidators given competing proposals' 'Scope of the partnership business regarding the Gowrie pharmacy premises' 'Whether gross sum costs order should be made']

Ratio Decidendi

The dissolution and winding up of the pharmacy partnerships and the two pharmacy companies was just and equitable due to irreconcilable disputes among the owners, the lack of effective dispute resolution mechanisms across all entities, and the need to protect substantial business assets, with costs of the proceedings to be paid out of partnership and company assets, and the appointment of experienced insolvency practitioners as receivers and liquidators. Application for a lump sum costs order was refused as there was no good reason to depart from usual cost assessment procedures.

Court Disposition

Orders made for dissolution of partnerships and winding up of companies; costs orders as specified; lump sum costs order refused.

Orders

  • ['Declarations made as to the existence of the pharmacy partnerships.' 'Orders dissolving the pharmacy partnerships (except Gowrie, for which receivers appointed provisionally pending resolution of its partnership business scope).' 'Winding up orders made for Discount Pharmacy Pty Limited and RX Dispense Pty...