Kazar (liquidator), in the matter of AE Charter Services Pty Ltd (in liq) v Adelaide Equity Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 59

Kazar (liquidator), in the matter of AE Charter Services Pty Ltd (in liq) v Adelaide Equity Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 59

Default judgment was appropriate as the third defendant was properly served, did not participate, and the statement of claim with supporting affidavits disclosed every element needed for relief under s 588M of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The Court exercised its discretion to enter judgment for compensation and interest as claimed.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Henry Joseph Kazar in his capacity as liquidator of AE Charter Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and Rossair Charter Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Second Plaintiff: AE Charter Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Third Plaintiff: Rossair Charter Pty Ltd (in liquidation); First Defendant: Adelaide Equity Holdings Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Mark Lindh; Third Defendant: Duncan Gordon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Default Judgment / Post Hearing (judgment on Default)
Outcome
Default judgment granted against the third defendant with orders for payment of compensation, interest and costs.
Legal Topics
Insolvent Trading, Default Judgment, Director's Duties
Insolvency Corporate Law Civil Procedure Insolvent Trading Default Judgment Director's Duties

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Joseph Kazar in his capacity as liquidator of AE Charter Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and Rossair Charter Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

First Plaintiff

AE Charter Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

Second Plaintiff

Rossair Charter Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

Third Plaintiff

Adelaide Equity Holdings Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Mark Lindh

Second Defendant

Duncan Gordon

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Default Judgment / Post Hearing (judgment on Default)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment should be entered against the third defendant for insolvent trading under s 588M of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation and interest for debts incurred while the companies were insolvent

Ratio Decidendi

Default judgment was appropriate as the third defendant was properly served, did not participate, and the statement of claim with supporting affidavits disclosed every element needed for relief under s 588M of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The Court exercised its discretion to enter judgment for compensation and interest as claimed.

Court Disposition

Default judgment granted against the third defendant with orders for payment of compensation, interest and costs.

Orders

  • The third defendant pay to the second plaintiff $487,827.54.
  • The third defendant pay to the second plaintiff interest of $183,064.99 from 3 August 2018 to 6 February 2025.