Micro Minerals Pty Ltd (in liq) v Egon Grossberg & Anor [1998] FCA 1795

Micro Minerals Pty Ltd (in liq) v Egon Grossberg & Anor [1998] FCA 1795

Neither the alleged charge nor the assignment of the asset was validly established. The $250,000 remained the Company's property and was a void disposition under s 468(1) of the Corporations Law. The first respondent (Grossberg) was liable to repay the full amount. The second respondent (Nahas) was only liable for the portion personally received ($260.89), as the deposit was not in the ordinary course of business nor was he aware or ought to have been aware of its receipt before disposition. Nahas is indemnified by Grossberg for that liability.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the applicant against the first respondent for $250,000 plus interest and half costs; judgment for the applicant against the second respondent for $260.89 plus interest (to be indemnified by the first respondent); costs otherwise as per orders.
Legal Topics
['liability of Partnership for Wrongful Act of a Partner' 'void Dispositions Under S 468(1) Corporations Law' 'equitable Tracing' 'assignment of Rights' 'partnership Liability and Knowledge']
['partnership Law' 'corporate Insolvency'] ['liability of Partnership for Wrongful Act of a Partner' 'void Dispositions Under S 468(1) Corporations Law' 'equitable Tracing' 'assignment of Rights' 'partnership Liability and Knowledge']

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 / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the deposit of $250,000 payable under a license agreement to a partnership's trust account was a disposition of company property void under s 468(1) of the Corporations Law" 'Whether the purported charge or assignment of the asset prior to winding up was effective' 'Whether both partners in Grossberg & Co are liable for the receipt/disposition of the funds' "Application of the rule in Clayton's Case to identify whether Second Respondent received any part of the $250,000"]

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the alleged charge nor the assignment of the asset was validly established. The $250,000 remained the Company's property and was a void disposition under s 468(1) of the Corporations Law. The first respondent (Grossberg) was liable to repay the full amount. The second respondent (Nahas) was only liable for the portion personally received ($260.89), as the deposit was not in the ordinary course of business nor was he aware or ought to have been aware of its receipt before disposition. Nahas is indemnified by Grossberg for that liability.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant against the first respondent for $250,000 plus interest and half costs; judgment for the applicant against the second respondent for $260.89 plus interest (to be indemnified by the first respondent); costs otherwise as per orders.

Orders

  • ['The first respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $250,000 together with interest fixed at $---' 'The first respondent pay to the applicant one half of its costs of and incidental to the application.' 'The second respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $260.89 together with interest fixed at $---.' 'The...