In the matter of Land Enviro Corp Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1087

In the matter of Land Enviro Corp Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1087

Although the 27 June interlocutory process could be treated as an amendment of the 11 June process so that the plaintiff was treated as having sought an extension of time before expiry, no order extending time for compliance with the statutory demand was made before the extended compliance period expired on about 18...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications / Applications After Dismissal of Application to Set Aside Creditor's Statutory Demand, Seeking Stay or Further Extension of Time for Compliance With Statutory Demand and Addressing Costs
Outcome
Interlocutory process filed on 11 June 2013 dismissed with costs; interlocutory process filed on 27 June 2013 dismissed with costs; personal costs order against Mr Zdrilic declined.
Legal Topics
['statutory Demands' 'extension of Time for Compliance With Statutory Demand' 'appeal Pending' 'personal Costs Order Against Director Appearing for Company']
['corporations' 'insolvency' 'costs'] ['statutory Demands' 'extension of Time for Compliance With Statutory Demand' 'appeal Pending' 'personal Costs Order Against Director Appearing for Company']

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

Interlocutory Applications / Applications After Dismissal of Application to Set Aside Creditor's Statutory Demand, Seeking Stay or Further Extension of Time for Compliance With Statutory Demand and Addressing Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court could further extend time for compliance with a creditor's statutory demand after the extended time for compliance had expired." 'Whether the interlocutory process filed on 27 June 2013 should be treated as an amendment of the interlocutory process filed on 11 June 2013.' "Whether costs should be ordered personally against Mr Zdrilic, the plaintiff's director who appeared for the plaintiff without legal representation."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the 27 June interlocutory process could be treated as an amendment of the 11 June process so that the plaintiff was treated as having sought an extension of time before expiry, no order extending time for compliance with the statutory demand was made before the extended compliance period expired on about 18 June 2013. Under the High Court authority in Aussie Vic Plant Hire v Esanda, the Court had no jurisdiction to extend time after expiry, so both interlocutory processes had to be dismissed. A personal costs order against Mr Zdrilic was not justified because his appearance as director was not to be used as de facto security for costs and nothing in the conduct of the...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory process filed on 11 June 2013 dismissed with costs; interlocutory process filed on 27 June 2013 dismissed with costs; personal costs order against Mr Zdrilic declined.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory process filed on 11 June 2013 be dismissed with costs.' 'The interlocutory process filed on 27 June 2013 be dismissed with costs.' 'The application for the costs order to be made personally against Mr Zdrilic is declined.']