King v Peters [2007] NSWSC 200

King v Peters [2007] NSWSC 200

Leave to proceed was refused because the applicant failed to establish a sufficient evidentiary foundation for the first category of claims (ownership of horses by the partnership) and had no standing to bring the second category of claims concerning the efficacy of Mendarma's transactions, as she was a stranger to those instruments and not empowered under the Corporations Act to bring proceedings in the company's name.

Parties
Plaintiff/cross Defendant: Larry Edward King; Plaintiff/cross Defendant: Pamela Elizabeth King; Defendant/cross Claimant: Mark Arthur Peters; Defendant/cross Claimant: Tina Peters; Cross Defendant: Mendarma Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Cross Defendant: Denham Properties Pty Limited; Cross Defendant: Mr Donnelly; Cross Defendant: Ms Duggan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Leave to Proceed Against Company in Liquidation / Interlocutory Motion Determined
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; leave refused; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Leave to Proceed Against Company in Liquidation, Standing to Sue on Partnership Property, Court Appointed Receivers, Cross Claims, Partnership Dissolution
Corporations Law Civil Procedure Equity Leave to Proceed Against Company in Liquidation Standing to Sue on Partnership Property Court Appointed Receivers Cross Claims Partnership Dissolution

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Larry Edward King

Plaintiff/cross Defendant

Pamela Elizabeth King

Plaintiff/cross Defendant

Mark Arthur Peters

Defendant/cross Claimant

Tina Peters

Defendant/cross Claimant

Mendarma Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

Cross Defendant

Denham Properties Pty Limited

Cross Defendant

Mr Donnelly

Cross Defendant

Ms Duggan

Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion for Leave to Proceed Against Company in Liquidation / Interlocutory Motion Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant has standing to bring a claim in relation to partnership property against a company in liquidation
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted under s 500(2) Corporations Act 2001 to proceed against Mendarma Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to proceed was refused because the applicant failed to establish a sufficient evidentiary foundation for the first category of claims (ownership of horses by the partnership) and had no standing to bring the second category of claims concerning the efficacy of Mendarma's transactions, as she was a stranger to those instruments and not empowered under the Corporations Act to bring proceedings in the company's name.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; leave refused; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Notice of Motion dated 12 December 2006 dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.