Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Ludgates Corporate and Investment Advisory Services Pty Limited [2003] FCA 1368

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Ludgates Corporate and Investment Advisory Services Pty Limited [2003] FCA 1368

The Court held that mere appointment of a receiver does not defeat specific performance rights of the purchaser under the contract, nor is there evidence of impropriety or undervalue in the existing sale; therefore, the receivers are authorised to complete the contract with Rentfile Pty Limited, and the alternative application to test the market through further marketing is dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Australian Securities and Investments Commission; First Defendant: Ludgates Corporate and Investment Advisory Services Pty Limited (ACN 053 972 320); Second Defendant: Benjamin Paul Whitehouse; Third Defendant: Jennifer Martine Sisson; Fourth Defendant: James Adrian Dean
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Judgment on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application to authorise receivers to complete the contract granted; application for further relief dismissed.
Legal Topics
Receivership, Completion of Contract, Court Authorisation Under Corporations Act, Specific Performance, Costs
Corporations Law Equity Receivership Completion of Contract Court Authorisation Under Corporations Act Specific Performance Costs

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

Parties

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Plaintiff

Ludgates Corporate and Investment Advisory Services Pty Limited (ACN 053 972 320)

First Defendant

Benjamin Paul Whitehouse

Second Defendant

Jennifer Martine Sisson

Third Defendant

James Adrian Dean

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Judgment on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should authorise the receivers to complete a contract entered into by the second defendant for sale of land
  2. 2 Whether appointment of a receiver defeats specific performance rights of a contracting party
  3. 3 Whether the receivers should conduct a new marketing campaign for the property or complete the existing contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that mere appointment of a receiver does not defeat specific performance rights of the purchaser under the contract, nor is there evidence of impropriety or undervalue in the existing sale; therefore, the receivers are authorised to complete the contract with Rentfile Pty Limited, and the alternative application to test the market through further marketing is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to authorise receivers to complete the contract granted; application for further relief dismissed.

Orders

  • The court authorises Gregory Michael Maloney and Peter Ivan Felix Geroff of Ferrier Hodgson to complete the contract entered into on or about 15 April 2003 by the second defendant with Rentfile Pty Limited in respect of the land, the subject of order (1) made by Sackville J on 5 August 2003.
  • The receivers have their costs on a party/party basis from the fund.