Inner West Demolition (NSW) Pty Limited v Silk [2018] NSWDC 136

Inner West Demolition (NSW) Pty Limited v Silk [2018] NSWDC 136

One Build Pty Ltd was insolvent from at least 30 June 2013, debts to Inner West Demolition (NSW) Pty Limited were incurred prior to liquidation, a reasonable director in the position of Mr Silk would have been aware of grounds for suspecting insolvency, and no statutory defence under s 588H of Corporations Act was made out. Written consent under s 588R was validly given by liquidators. Judgment for plaintiff.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
['insolvent Trading' 'director Liability' 'statutory Defences' 'contract Formation' 'liquidator Consent' 'cash Flow Insolvency' 'progress Claims' 'evidence Assessment']
['corporations Law' 'building and Construction Law'] ['insolvent Trading' 'director Liability' 'statutory Defences' 'contract Formation' 'liquidator Consent' 'cash Flow Insolvency' 'progress Claims' 'evidence Assessment']

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

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether plaintiff obtained consent of liquidators before commencing proceedings under s 588M of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)' 'Whether One Build Pty Ltd was insolvent when debts to plaintiff were incurred' 'Whether director had reasonable grounds for suspecting insolvency' 'Whether debts were incurred within the meaning of statutory provisions' 'Whether statutory defences under s 588H of Corporations Act are available to director']

Ratio Decidendi

One Build Pty Ltd was insolvent from at least 30 June 2013, debts to Inner West Demolition (NSW) Pty Limited were incurred prior to liquidation, a reasonable director in the position of Mr Silk would have been aware of grounds for suspecting insolvency, and no statutory defence under s 588H of Corporations Act was made out. Written consent under s 588R was validly given by liquidators. Judgment for plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff' "Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed" 'Parties to bring in agreed Short Minutes of Order reflecting reasons, amount found, and interest within seven days' 'Liberty to apply in relation to costs order' 'Exhibits to be returned after 28 days']