Quintano v B W Rose Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 720

Quintano v B W Rose Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 720

Leave is granted as the balance of convenience favours allowing the proceedings to continue: the proceedings involve a real dispute, are substantially ready for hearing, denying leave may cause additional delay and costs, and although there is some risk to creditors, the prejudice is likely less than if leave were denied.

Parties
Plaintiff: Luke Quintano; First Defendant: B W Rose Pty Ltd; Second Defendant / Cross Claimant: AWS Security Services Pty Ltd; Cross Defendant (to Second Cross Claim): Prestige Insurance Brokers (Aust) Pty Ltd; Cross Defendant (to Third Cross Claim): Syndicate 3245 (Managing Agent: Heritage Managing Agency Ltd London); Cross Defendant (to Third Cross Claim): Syndicate 1218 (Managing Agent: Heritage Managing Agency Ltd London)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Leave Application in Corporate Insolvency/personal Injury Proceeding / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Proceed Against Company in Administration/winding Up
Outcome
Leave granted
Legal Topics
Voluntary Administration, Leave to Proceed, Winding Up, Common Law Damages, Cross Claims, Insolvency Practice
Corporations Law Personal Injury Voluntary Administration Leave to Proceed Winding Up Common Law Damages Cross Claims Insolvency Practice

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luke Quintano

Plaintiff

B W Rose Pty Ltd

First Defendant

AWS Security Services Pty Ltd

Second Defendant / Cross Claimant

Prestige Insurance Brokers (Aust) Pty Ltd

Cross Defendant (to Second Cross Claim)

Syndicate 3245 (Managing Agent: Heritage Managing Agency Ltd London)

Cross Defendant (to Third Cross Claim)

Syndicate 1218 (Managing Agent: Heritage Managing Agency Ltd London)

Cross Defendant (to Third Cross Claim)

Procedural Posture

Leave Application in Corporate Insolvency/personal Injury Proceeding / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Proceed Against Company in Administration/winding Up

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to allow proceedings and a cross-claim against a company in administration or, if wound up, in liquidation under s 440D and s 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001

Ratio Decidendi

Leave is granted as the balance of convenience favours allowing the proceedings to continue: the proceedings involve a real dispute, are substantially ready for hearing, denying leave may cause additional delay and costs, and although there is some risk to creditors, the prejudice is likely less than if leave were denied.

Court Disposition

Leave granted

Orders

  • In proceeding No 3731 of 2008: Plaintiff granted leave pursuant to s 440D(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to proceed with proceeding No 20130 of 2004 against the Defendant.
  • Each party to pay its own costs of and relating to this proceeding, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to recover costs in the Common Law proceeding.