Roufeil v Gliderol International Pty Limited [2011] FCA 847

Roufeil v Gliderol International Pty Limited [2011] FCA 847

Considering Austech's financial position as a whole, Austech was insolvent by 12 July 2007 and was presumed under s 588E(3) to have remained insolvent through the dates of the two payments. The payments to Gliderol gave Gliderol more than it would have received in Austech's winding-up and were therefore unfair...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Application by Liquidator Concerning Alleged Voidable Transactions and Unfair Preferences Under the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Reasons for Judgment With Directions for Short Minutes of Order and Listing for Final Orders
Outcome
The plaintiffs established that the two payments were voidable transactions and Gliderol's s 588FG(2) defence was not established; the Court indicated that repayment of equivalent sums with interest and costs should be ordered, and directed the parties to submit proposed orders.
Legal Topics
['voidable Transactions' 'unfair Preferences' 'insolvent Transactions' 'presumption of Insolvency' 'good Faith Defence' 'liquidator Recovery Proceeding']
['corporations Law' 'insolvency Law'] ['voidable Transactions' 'unfair Preferences' 'insolvent Transactions' 'presumption of Insolvency' 'good Faith Defence' 'liquidator Recovery Proceeding']

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 Concerning Alleged Voidable Transactions and Unfair Preferences Under the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Reasons for Judgment With Directions for Short Minutes of Order and Listing for Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs proved that Austech was insolvent at the time the payments to Gliderol were made.' 'Whether the two payments were unfair preferences and voidable transactions under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).' 'Whether Gliderol proved the defence under s 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), including good faith, no reasonable grounds to suspect insolvency, and valuable consideration or change of position.']

Ratio Decidendi

Considering Austech's financial position as a whole, Austech was insolvent by 12 July 2007 and was presumed under s 588E(3) to have remained insolvent through the dates of the two payments. The payments to Gliderol gave Gliderol more than it would have received in Austech's winding-up and were therefore unfair preferences, insolvent transactions and voidable transactions. Gliderol failed to establish the s 588FG(2) defence because the evidence did not prove the subjective absence of reasonable grounds to suspect insolvency, and a reasonable person in Gliderol's position would have suspected insolvency from the history of non-payment, judgment, statutory demand and winding-up proceedings.

Court Disposition

The plaintiffs established that the two payments were voidable transactions and Gliderol's s 588FG(2) defence was not established; the Court indicated that repayment of equivalent sums with interest and costs should be ordered, and directed the parties to submit proposed orders.

Orders

  • ['The parties confer and submit agreed or competing short minutes of order in accordance with these reasons for judgment within 14 days.' 'The proceeding be listed at 9.30 a.m. on 16 August 2011 for the making of final orders.']