Arnautovic v Nichola [2009] NSWSC 831

Arnautovic v Nichola [2009] NSWSC 831

The extension of time sought was justified due to the liquidators acting in the interests of all creditors, with a proper explanation for the delay, no material inappropriate conduct, and insufficient prejudice to the defendant to outweigh the case for granting extension. The period for application under s 588FF(1) against the third defendant was accordingly extended.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Corporations Law Application / Application for Extension of Time Under S 588 Ff(3)(b)
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'liquidator Powers' 'voidable Transactions']
['corporations Law' 'equity'] ['extension of Time' 'liquidator Powers' 'voidable Transactions']

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

Corporations Law Application / Application for Extension of Time Under S 588 Ff(3)(b)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time for bringing an application under s 588FF(1) against Metso Minerals should be extended' 'Explanation for delay in commencing proceedings' 'Appropriate length and fairness of extension' 'Potential prejudice to the defendant']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time sought was justified due to the liquidators acting in the interests of all creditors, with a proper explanation for the delay, no material inappropriate conduct, and insufficient prejudice to the defendant to outweigh the case for granting extension. The period for application under s 588FF(1) against the third defendant was accordingly extended.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 588FF(3)(b) of the Corporations Act, period for application under s 588FF(1) against third defendant is extended up to and including 16 December 2009.' "Plaintiffs' costs of this application be costs in the winding up of the second plaintiff." "No order as to third defendant's costs."]