Findlay v Jones [2015] NSWSC 277

Findlay v Jones [2015] NSWSC 277

The notice of motion was dismissed because the proposed separate questions were not practically pressed in light of credit issues affecting the whole proceedings, expedition of the whole matter faced preparation and listing difficulties, and any prejudice or interest of unsecured creditors in requiring an application under s 588FM was not sufficiently significant to warrant disrupting existing hearing commitments.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division Corporations List Proceedings / Application for Determination of Separate Questions Or, Alternatively, Expedition of the Proceedings
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['expedition of Proceedings' 'separate Questions' 'voluntary Liquidation' 'winding Up' 'extension of Time for Registration of Security Interest Under S 588 Fm' 'unsecured Creditors']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations'] ['expedition of Proceedings' 'separate Questions' 'voluntary Liquidation' 'winding Up' 'extension of Time for Registration of Security Interest Under S 588 Fm' 'unsecured Creditors']

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

Notice of Motion in Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division Corporations List Proceedings / Application for Determination of Separate Questions Or, Alternatively, Expedition of the Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether claims concerning voiding the voluntary liquidation and winding up should be determined as separate questions.' 'Whether the entire proceedings should be expedited to preserve the position of unsecured creditors and require the plaintiff to make an application under s 588FM.' 'Whether potential prejudice to unsecured creditors was sufficiently significant to warrant disruption of matters already fixed for hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion was dismissed because the proposed separate questions were not practically pressed in light of credit issues affecting the whole proceedings, expedition of the whole matter faced preparation and listing difficulties, and any prejudice or interest of unsecured creditors in requiring an application under s 588FM was not sufficiently significant to warrant disrupting existing hearing commitments.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed 4 March 2015 be dismissed with costs.']