Australian Securities and Investment Commission, In the Matter of Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968) v Carey (No 5) [2006] FCA 684

Australian Securities and Investment Commission, In the Matter of Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968) v Carey (No 5) [2006] FCA 684

Given the provisional nature of the receivership orders and no ascertained liabilities, receivers' remuneration (except as consented by third and fourth defendants) should not presently be paid from assets of defendants; ASIC may apply afresh if circumstances change. The Court has power to order oral examination of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Australian Securities and Investment Commission; First Defendant: Norman Phillip Carey; Second Defendant: Graeme John Rundle; Third Defendant: Cedric Richard Palmer Beck; Fourth Defendant: John Norman Dixon; Fifth Defendant: Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968); Sixth Defendant: Westpoint Realty Pty Ltd (ACN 050 218 954); Seventh Defendant: Bowesco Pty Ltd (ACN 008 915 357); Eighth Defendant: Redchime Pty Ltd (ACN 117 947 805); Ninth Defendant: Keypoint Developments Pty Ltd (ACN 115 507 232)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Orders / Interlocutory Order and Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
orders made as specified; receivers' remuneration not generally payable out of assets except for third and fourth defendants; order for oral examination of first defendant; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Appointment of Receivers, Receivers' Remuneration, Asset Disclosure Affidavits, Oral Examination, Ancillary Orders, Statutory Powers
Corporations Law Appointment of Receivers Receivers' Remuneration Asset Disclosure Affidavits Oral Examination Ancillary Orders Statutory Powers

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities and Investment Commission

Plaintiff

Norman Phillip Carey

First Defendant

Graeme John Rundle

Second Defendant

Cedric Richard Palmer Beck

Third Defendant

John Norman Dixon

Fourth Defendant

Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968)

Fifth Defendant

Westpoint Realty Pty Ltd (ACN 050 218 954)

Sixth Defendant

Bowesco Pty Ltd (ACN 008 915 357)

Seventh Defendant

Redchime Pty Ltd (ACN 117 947 805)

Eighth Defendant

Keypoint Developments Pty Ltd (ACN 115 507 232)

Ninth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Orders / Interlocutory Order and Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether receivers' remuneration should be paid out of defendants' assets
  2. 2 adequacy of asset disclosure affidavits by defendants
  3. 3 power to order oral examination on affidavits

Ratio Decidendi

Given the provisional nature of the receivership orders and no ascertained liabilities, receivers' remuneration (except as consented by third and fourth defendants) should not presently be paid from assets of defendants; ASIC may apply afresh if circumstances change. The Court has power to order oral examination of Mr Carey regarding his disclosure affidavits due to inconsistencies and inadequacies, as an ancillary measure to ensure compliance with asset disclosure obligations.

Court Disposition

orders made as specified; receivers' remuneration not generally payable out of assets except for third and fourth defendants; order for oral examination of first defendant; costs reserved

Orders

  • By consent, receivers' costs for third and fourth defendants paid from their property; neither required to pay costs of receivers for other defendants.
  • ASIC's application that receivers' remuneration be paid from assets of defendants (other than third and fourth defendants) adjourned to 3 October 2006, liberty to relist application earlier.