Golding v O’Ryan [2019] NSWCA 259

Golding v O’Ryan [2019] NSWCA 259

The applicants were not denied procedural fairness as all relevant submissions had been made in writing and considered by the primary judge; there was no error in the judge's reliance on a concession or in the timing thereof; ample opportunity for resolution between the parties had been provided, justifying the winding up order and the refusal to extend its stay.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Appellate; Leave Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'company Winding Up' 'deadlock' 'stay of Orders']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Appellate; Leave Application

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge denied procedural fairness by precluding the applicants from making submissions on identified topics' 'Whether the primary judge proceeded on the basis that a concession had been made on behalf of the Goldings before the winding up order was made' 'Whether the primary judge should have extended a stay of the winding up orders due to lack of substantial opportunity to resolve differences']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were not denied procedural fairness as all relevant submissions had been made in writing and considered by the primary judge; there was no error in the judge's reliance on a concession or in the timing thereof; ample opportunity for resolution between the parties had been provided, justifying the winding up order and the refusal to extend its stay.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.']