In the matter of Tumut River Orchard Management Limited (in liq) ABN 003 501 611 [2011] NSWSC 915

In the matter of Tumut River Orchard Management Limited (in liq) ABN 003 501 611 [2011] NSWSC 915

The plaintiff could bring the application because r 7.2(2)(a) did not create a closed class of applicants and s 502 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) imposed no restriction on who may apply; in any event, the Court would dispense with any contrary requirement and direct that the application could be brought by the plaintiff. The company had no liquidator acting, so the Court appointed Mr Steven Gladman as liquidator.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Corporations Application for Appointment of a Liquidator Under S 502 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Originating Process Dated 15 July 2011; Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; Mr Steven Gladman appointed as liquidator of Tumut River Orchard Management Ltd (in liq).
Legal Topics
['appointment of Liquidator' 'vacancy in Office of Liquidator' 'standing to Bring Application' 'dispensing With Court Rules' 'supreme Court (corporations) Rules']
['corporations Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['appointment of Liquidator' 'vacancy in Office of Liquidator' 'standing to Bring Application' 'dispensing With Court Rules' 'supreme Court (corporations) Rules']

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

Procedural Posture

Corporations Application for Appointment of a Liquidator Under S 502 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Originating Process Dated 15 July 2011; Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court could appoint a liquidator where the company was in liquidation without a liquidator acting.' 'Whether r 7.2(2)(a) of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 (NSW) restricted applications to ASIC, a creditor or a contributory.' "Whether any requirement of r 7.2 should be dispensed with or procedural directions given to permit the plaintiff's application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff could bring the application because r 7.2(2)(a) did not create a closed class of applicants and s 502 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) imposed no restriction on who may apply; in any event, the Court would dispense with any contrary requirement and direct that the application could be brought by the plaintiff. The company had no liquidator acting, so the Court appointed Mr Steven Gladman as liquidator.

Court Disposition

Application granted; Mr Steven Gladman appointed as liquidator of Tumut River Orchard Management Ltd (in liq).

Orders

  • ['Dispensed with any requirement of r 7.2 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 (NSW) that the application be by ASIC, a creditor or a contributory.' 'Directed that the application may be brought by the plaintiff.' 'Made an order in terms of paragraph 1 of the Originating Process appointing Mr Steven...