In the Matter of White Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd (in liq); Prentice, Maxwell William [1998] FCA 1043

In the Matter of White Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd (in liq); Prentice, Maxwell William [1998] FCA 1043

There was no pending cause involving a constitutional matter as required by s 78B of the Judiciary Act; the Registrar's orders stand unless set aside on review, and no satisfactory explanation for delay in seeking review was provided. Accordingly, applications for adjournment and extension of time were refused as futile and unsupported by evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Corporate Insolvency Proceeding / Hearing of Two Notices of Motion Following Registrar's Orders
Outcome
Applications for adjournment and extension of time refused; cost orders made against persons and companies named in annexure 'A'; orders varied as set out in judgment.
Legal Topics
["liquidator's Powers" 'examination and Summons Under Corporations Law' "applications for Review of Registrar's Decisions" 'section 78 B Notices' 'extension of Time']
['corporations Law' 'insolvency Law' 'practice and Procedure' 'constitutional Law'] ["liquidator's Powers" 'examination and Summons Under Corporations Law' "applications for Review of Registrar's Decisions" 'section 78 B Notices' 'extension of Time']

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

Corporate Insolvency Proceeding / Hearing of Two Notices of Motion Following Registrar's Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should adjourn proceedings to enable notices under s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to issue to Attorneys-General due to alleged constitutional issues' 'Whether there was any cause pending in the Court arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation' "Whether an extension of time to seek review of the Registrar's decisions should be granted" "Whether application for review of Registrar's decisions was doomed to fail"]

Ratio Decidendi

There was no pending cause involving a constitutional matter as required by s 78B of the Judiciary Act; the Registrar's orders stand unless set aside on review, and no satisfactory explanation for delay in seeking review was provided. Accordingly, applications for adjournment and extension of time were refused as futile and unsupported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Applications for adjournment and extension of time refused; cost orders made against persons and companies named in annexure 'A'; orders varied as set out in judgment.

Orders

  • ['Notice of Motion returnable instanter' 'Extension of time for making application for review refused' 'Order dispensing with compliance with O 52 r5(2) refused' 'Costs orders made against named respondents/companies' 'Liberty to apply at short notice' 'Adjournment refused' "Registrar's decision to allow inspection...