Ace Contractors & Staff Pty Ltd v Westgarth Development Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 728

Ace Contractors & Staff Pty Ltd v Westgarth Development Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 728

The respondent failed to rebut the statutory presumption of insolvency arising from non-compliance with the statutory demand, as the evidence led did not constitute the fullest and best proof of solvency; unaudited and audited accounts, assertions, and valuation evidence were insufficient to establish capacity to pay debts as they fall due. However, due to the size of the claim relative to the company’s assets, the ongoing business, and potential adverse impact of winding up, the application was adjourned and the respondent was granted opportunity to pay the claimed sum.

Parties
Applicant: Ace Contractors & Staff Pty Ltd; Respondent: Westgarth Development Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Corporations – Insolvency / Application for Winding Up in Insolvency, Reasons for Judgment and Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Application for winding up adjourned; respondent given opportunity to pay claimed sum to avoid winding up; orders as to costs.
Legal Topics
Winding Up Application, Statutory Demand, Presumption of Insolvency, Solvency, Court Discretion, Evidence Regarding Solvency
Corporations Law Insolvency Winding Up Application Statutory Demand Presumption of Insolvency Solvency Court Discretion Evidence Regarding Solvency

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 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ace Contractors & Staff Pty Ltd

Applicant

Westgarth Development Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Corporations – Insolvency / Application for Winding Up in Insolvency, Reasons for Judgment and Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent company is presumed insolvent by virtue of failure to comply with statutory demand
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has rebutted presumption of insolvency by demonstrating solvency
  3. 3 Whether Court should exercise discretion not to order winding up despite insolvency

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to rebut the statutory presumption of insolvency arising from non-compliance with the statutory demand, as the evidence led did not constitute the fullest and best proof of solvency; unaudited and audited accounts, assertions, and valuation evidence were insufficient to establish capacity to pay debts as they fall due. However, due to the size of the claim relative to the company’s assets, the ongoing business, and potential adverse impact of winding up, the application was adjourned and the respondent was granted opportunity to pay the claimed sum.

Court Disposition

Application for winding up adjourned; respondent given opportunity to pay claimed sum to avoid winding up; orders as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for winding up is adjourned to 15 June 1999.
  • If the respondent pays $112,106.04 to the applicant before that date, the application stands dismissed.