IMF (Australia) Ltd v Meadow Springs Fairway Resort Ltd (In Liquidation) (No 3) [2009] FCAFC 72

IMF (Australia) Ltd v Meadow Springs Fairway Resort Ltd (In Liquidation) (No 3) [2009] FCAFC 72

The parties' applications to vary the orders made on 4 June 2009 are rejected. New or groundless arguments regarding priorities or costs are outside the scope of proper submissions on the form of orders. The orders as made accurately reflect the result in the principal reasons and no substantive amendment is warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Submissions Regarding Form of Orders
Outcome
Applications to vary the orders of 4 June 2009 are rejected. No substantive variation or further orders are made.
Legal Topics
["liquidator's Remuneration" 'secured Creditor Priorities' 'appeal Procedure' 'submissions on Orders']
['insolvency' 'corporations Law'] ["liquidator's Remuneration" 'secured Creditor Priorities' 'appeal Procedure' 'submissions on Orders']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment Submissions Regarding Form of Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether to vary orders made on 4 June 2009 regarding distribution and priority of funds following settlement.' 'Whether the Liquidator should be given priority for remuneration and legal expenses over secured creditors.' 'Whether the form of the prior orders properly gives effect to the principal reasons of the Full Court.' 'Whether late-filed submissions and attempts to reopen or vary the orders are permissible.']

Ratio Decidendi

The parties' applications to vary the orders made on 4 June 2009 are rejected. New or groundless arguments regarding priorities or costs are outside the scope of proper submissions on the form of orders. The orders as made accurately reflect the result in the principal reasons and no substantive amendment is warranted.

Court Disposition

Applications to vary the orders of 4 June 2009 are rejected. No substantive variation or further orders are made.

Orders

  • []