ABCD Corporation Pty Ltd v Sampson [2017] NSWCA 117

ABCD Corporation Pty Ltd v Sampson [2017] NSWCA 117

Even assuming an arguable breach of s 420A by the receiver, the applicant did not show a reasonable basis for concluding that Black J's discretionary refusal of injunctive and interim relief was erroneous. Damages could adequately address any established breach, and the Court should not impose a court-regulated sale process in place of the receiver's exercise of the power of sale.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay Pending Hearing of Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order Refusing Interlocutory Injunction / Notice of Motion in the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['stay Pending Leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Injunction' "receiver's Sale of Company Property" 'market Value' 'adequacy of Damages']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations Law' 'equity'] ['stay Pending Leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Injunction' "receiver's Sale of Company Property" 'market Value' 'adequacy of Damages']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay Pending Hearing of Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order Refusing Interlocutory Injunction / Notice of Motion in the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed completion of the sale should be stayed pending the hearing of an application for leave to appeal.' 'Whether there was an arguable breach by the receiver of the obligation under s 420A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to take all reasonable care to sell at not less than market value.' 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy if a breach of duty by the receiver were established.' "Whether the Court should intervene to supervise or regulate the receiver's sale process."]

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming an arguable breach of s 420A by the receiver, the applicant did not show a reasonable basis for concluding that Black J's discretionary refusal of injunctive and interim relief was erroneous. Damages could adequately address any established breach, and the Court should not impose a court-regulated sale process in place of the receiver's exercise of the power of sale.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the notice of motion filed 18 May 2017.' "The applicant must pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings on the motion."]