Obnova Concrete NSW Pty Ltd v Windlock Pty Ltd; Ayoub v Obnova Concrete Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] NSWSC 181

Obnova Concrete NSW Pty Ltd v Windlock Pty Ltd; Ayoub v Obnova Concrete Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] NSWSC 181

The Cross Summons was dismissed because Mr Ayoub failed to establish on the evidence any ownership of specifically identified chattels, and any charge under the Deed was void against the liquidator for want of registration. No orders were warranted as to creditor status, the supposed custodial obligations of Windlock, or right to access, as the evidence did not establish any relevant entitlement.

Parties
Cross Claimant: Michael Ayoub; Second Cross Defendant: Obnova Concrete Pty Ltd (in liq); Third Cross Defendant: Windlock Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Cross Summons / Post Hearing Judgment
Outcome
Cross Summons dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Ownership of Chattels, Deed of Acknowledgment and Assignment, Mortgage and Registrable Charge, Obligations of Mortgagee in Possession
Equity Insolvency Personal Property Ownership of Chattels Deed of Acknowledgment and Assignment Mortgage and Registrable Charge Obligations of Mortgagee in Possession

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ayoub

Cross Claimant

Obnova Concrete Pty Ltd (in liq)

Second Cross Defendant

Windlock Pty Limited

Third Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings Cross Summons / Post Hearing Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Ayoub owned any plant and equipment at Doyle Avenue as a result of a Deed of Acknowledgment and Assignment
  2. 2 Whether the Deed created a registrable charge under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether Windlock, as mortgagee in possession, is 'custodian' of chattels on the property

Ratio Decidendi

The Cross Summons was dismissed because Mr Ayoub failed to establish on the evidence any ownership of specifically identified chattels, and any charge under the Deed was void against the liquidator for want of registration. No orders were warranted as to creditor status, the supposed custodial obligations of Windlock, or right to access, as the evidence did not establish any relevant entitlement.

Court Disposition

Cross Summons dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Cross Summons dismissed with costs