KEITH WILLIAM SKINNER v JEOGLA PTY LTD & ORS [2001] NSWCA 15

KEITH WILLIAM SKINNER v JEOGLA PTY LTD & ORS [2001] NSWCA 15

Leave to proceed with the appeal was refused. Although it was reasonably arguable that Einstein J had erred in construing s420A by treating the cattle as having a market value under s420A(1)(a), the discretion under s471B was exercised against the appellant because the appeal would require an adjournment to join the ANZ Bank, any successful appeal would probably require a remitter for determination under s420A(1)(b), the likely practical utility was limited to reversal of the costs order, and the additional costs were not justified. To the extent leave under s101(2)(c) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 was required, it also would be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Corporations Law Appeal Concerning a Receiver's Duty on Sale of Mortgaged Company Property and Leave to Proceed Against Companies in Liquidation / Application in the New South Wales Court of Appeal for Leave to Proceed With the Appeal Under S471 B of the Corporations Law And, If Necessary, Leave Under S101(2)(c) of the Supreme Court Act 1970
Outcome
Leave to proceed with the appeal refused; proceedings dismissed; appellant ordered to pay respondents' costs incurred after 31 October 2000.
Legal Topics
["receiver's Duty When Exercising Power of Sale" 'corporations Law S420 A' 'leave to Proceed Against Company Being Wound Up' 'corporations Law S471 B' 'costs Only Appeals' 'supreme Court Act 1970 S101(2)(c)' 'market Value of Property Sold by Controller' 'joinder of Necessary Party on Appeal']
['corporations Law' 'insolvency' 'receivership' 'civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ["receiver's Duty When Exercising Power of Sale" 'corporations Law S420 A' 'leave to Proceed Against Company Being Wound Up' 'corporations Law S471 B' 'costs Only Appeals' 'supreme Court Act 1970 S101(2)(c)' 'market Value of Property Sold by Controller' 'joinder of Necessary Party on Appeal']

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 Law Appeal Concerning a Receiver's Duty on Sale of Mortgaged Company Property and Leave to Proceed Against Companies in Liquidation / Application in the New South Wales Court of Appeal for Leave to Proceed With the Appeal Under S471 B of the Corporations Law And, If Necessary, Leave Under S101(2)(c) of the Supreme Court Act 1970

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant required leave under s471B of the Corporations Law to proceed with an appeal against companies in liquidation.' 'Whether leave to proceed under s471B should be granted.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had a reasonably arguable foundation concerning the construction of s420A(1) of the Corporations Law and the meaning of market value.' 'Whether leave was also required under s101(2)(c) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 because the only order made against the appellant was as to costs.' 'Whether the absence of the ANZ Bank as a party to the appeal, the likelihood of a remitter, and the limited practical utility of the appeal justified refusing leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to proceed with the appeal was refused. Although it was reasonably arguable that Einstein J had erred in construing s420A by treating the cattle as having a market value under s420A(1)(a), the discretion under s471B was exercised against the appellant because the appeal would require an adjournment to join the ANZ Bank, any successful appeal would probably require a remitter for determination under s420A(1)(b), the likely practical utility was limited to reversal of the costs order, and the additional costs were not justified. To the extent leave under s101(2)(c) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 was required, it also would be refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to proceed with the appeal refused; proceedings dismissed; appellant ordered to pay respondents' costs incurred after 31 October 2000.

Orders

  • ['Leave to proceed with the appeal is refused.' 'Proceedings dismissed.' "The Appellant to pay the Respondents' costs incurred after 31 October 2000."]