Cadima Express v DCT [1999] NSWSC 1143
The applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable case or solid foundation for the relief sought in the proposed Second Cross-claim, and even if such foundation existed, the liquidator's decision not to pursue the proceedings and the inadequacy of the applicant's undertakings and security for protection justify refusal of the application for appointment of a receiver.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 December 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Application in Equity Proceedings / Judgment on Notice of Motion for Appointment of Receiver
- Outcome
- Application denied
- Legal Topics
- ['liquidation Proceedings' 'appointment of Receiver' 'companies in Liquidation' 'court Appointed Receiver' 'receiver to Conduct Litigation']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application in Equity Proceedings / Judgment on Notice of Motion for Appointment of Receiver
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether a receiver should be appointed to pursue proceedings on behalf of a company in liquidation' 'Whether there is an arguable case or solid foundation for the proposed proceedings' "What weight should be given to the liquidator's decision not to pursue proceedings"]
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable case or solid foundation for the relief sought in the proposed Second Cross-claim, and even if such foundation existed, the liquidator's decision not to pursue the proceedings and the inadequacy of the applicant's undertakings and security for protection justify refusal of the application for appointment of a receiver.
Court Disposition
Application denied
Orders
- []
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment