Bredenkamp v Gas Sensing Technology Corporation, in the matter of Welldog Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] FCA 1065

Bredenkamp v Gas Sensing Technology Corporation, in the matter of Welldog Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] FCA 1065

Although the equipment was bailed to Welldog and the bailments were for indefinite terms, the arrangements were not PPS leases because GSTC was not regularly engaged in the business of bailing goods and, alternatively, Welldog did not provide value for the bailments within s 13(3) of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth). Section 267 of the PPSA therefore did not vest the equipment in Welldog, and GSTC was entitled to possession of the equipment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Corporations Application for Directions and Declarations as to Ownership and Possession of Equipment in the Context of Receivership and Liquidation / Judgment After Urgent Hearing
Outcome
The receivers' originating application in WAD 401 of 2017 was dismissed, and GSTC obtained a declaration and delivery-up order in WAD 416 of 2017.
Legal Topics
['pps Lease' 'bailment' 'unperfected Security Interests' 'vesting Under S 267 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (cth)' 'vesting Under S 588 FL of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)' 'gratuitous Bailments' 'entitlement to Possession of Equipment']

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 Application for Directions and Declarations as to Ownership and Possession of Equipment in the Context of Receivership and Liquidation / Judgment After Urgent Hearing

  1. 1 ['Whether the four categories of equipment were subject to bailments for the purposes of s 13 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth).' 'Whether any bailments were for an indefinite term under s 13(1)(b) of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) as it applied at 20 March 2017.' 'Whether Gas Sensing Technology Corporation was regularly engaged in the business of bailing goods for the purposes of s 13(2)(b) of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth).' 'Whether the bailments were bailments for which Welldog Pty Ltd provided value under s 13(3) of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth).' 'Whether s 267 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) vested the equipment in Welldog Pty Ltd upon the appointment of administrators.' 'Whether Gas Sensing Technology Corporation was entitled to possession of the equipment.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the equipment was bailed to Welldog and the bailments were for indefinite terms, the arrangements were not PPS leases because GSTC was not regularly engaged in the business of bailing goods and, alternatively, Welldog did not provide value for the bailments within s 13(3) of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth). Section 267 of the PPSA therefore did not vest the equipment in Welldog, and GSTC was entitled to possession of the equipment.

Court Disposition

The receivers' originating application in WAD 401 of 2017 was dismissed, and GSTC obtained a declaration and delivery-up order in WAD 416 of 2017.

Orders

  • ['The Originating Application filed on 14 August 2017 in WAD 401 of 2017 be dismissed.' 'In WAD 401 of 2017, if the parties are unable to agree on costs, the Defendant file and serve written submissions on costs of and incidental to this proceeding and WAD 416/2017 by 4.00pm on Tuesday, 12 September 2017.' 'In WAD...