Nilant, Charles Philippe Louis v Plexipack Packaging Services Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 774

Nilant, Charles Philippe Louis v Plexipack Packaging Services Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 774

For s588FA(1) Corporations Law, the transaction must be one to which both the company and the creditor are parties. In this case, the respondent creditor was not a party to the contract (transaction), and the payment was made by a third party (the purchaser), not the company. The statutory provisions do not extend...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Application by Liquidator for Orders Under Corporations Law / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed as to $4,582.00 payment; respondent entitled to costs.
Legal Topics
['voidable Transactions' 'insolvent Transactions' 'unfair Preference' 'third Party Beneficiary Contracts' 'winding Up']
['corporations Law' 'insolvency'] ['voidable Transactions' 'insolvent Transactions' 'unfair Preference' 'third Party Beneficiary Contracts' 'winding Up']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application by Liquidator for Orders Under Corporations Law / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether payment made by a purchaser to a creditor, pursuant to pre-liquidation contract, is a voidable transaction under Corporations Law s588FE' 'Whether the creditor is a party to the transaction for the purposes of s588FA(1) Corporations Law' 'Whether the payment can be characterised as a receipt from the company']

Ratio Decidendi

For s588FA(1) Corporations Law, the transaction must be one to which both the company and the creditor are parties. In this case, the respondent creditor was not a party to the contract (transaction), and the payment was made by a third party (the purchaser), not the company. The statutory provisions do not extend to such payments; thus, the requirements of s588FA(1) were not satisfied and the payment was not voidable.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed as to $4,582.00 payment; respondent entitled to costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed so far as it relates to the payment of $4,582.00.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application."]