SJP Formwork (Aust) P/L & 1 Ors v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] NSWSC 604

SJP Formwork (Aust) P/L & 1 Ors v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] NSWSC 604

The reference in the consent order to payment "to the Plaintiffs" was to be construed in its forensic and legislative context as payment recovered for the company, necessarily paid to the liquidator on behalf of the company. The 1993 amendments did not displace the Kratzman principles. So understood, the order was an order under s588FF for the purposes of s588FGA(1).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Corporations Proceeding Concerning Unfair Preference and Indemnity Under S588 FGA of the Corporations Law / Notice of Motion Seeking Determination of Validity of Consent Order as an Order Under S588 FF
Outcome
Declaration granted.
Legal Topics
['unfair Preference' 'liquidation' 'indemnity Against Directors' 'construction of Court Orders' 'fixed and Floating Charge' 'kratzman Principles']
['corporations Law' 'insolvency' 'civil Procedure'] ['unfair Preference' 'liquidation' 'indemnity Against Directors' 'construction of Court Orders' 'fixed and Floating Charge' 'kratzman Principles']

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 Proceeding Concerning Unfair Preference and Indemnity Under S588 FGA of the Corporations Law / Notice of Motion Seeking Determination of Validity of Consent Order as an Order Under S588 FF

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether order 1 of the consent orders made on 18 May 2000 requiring payment to "the Plaintiffs" was an order under s588FF of the Corporations Law for the purposes of s588FGA(1).' 'Whether the inclusion of the liquidator as a payee meant that the order fell outside s588FF, which refers to payment to the company.' 'What effect the 1993 Harmer amendments to the Corporations Law had on recovery of unfair preferences and on the Kratzman principles.']

Ratio Decidendi

The reference in the consent order to payment "to the Plaintiffs" was to be construed in its forensic and legislative context as payment recovered for the company, necessarily paid to the liquidator on behalf of the company. The 1993 amendments did not displace the Kratzman principles. So understood, the order was an order under s588FF for the purposes of s588FGA(1).

Court Disposition

Declaration granted.

Orders

  • ['Declaration that order 1 of the orders made in these proceedings on 18 May 2000 was an order "under s588FF" for the purposes of s588FGA(1) of the Corporations Law.' 'The costs of the cross-claim in the Notice of Motion of 9 June 2000 shall be paid by the First and Second Cross-Defendant.' 'The Second Plaintiff is...