Mircon Pty Limited v Ariff [2009] NSWSC 651

Mircon Pty Limited v Ariff [2009] NSWSC 651

The court was satisfied, on uncontradicted evidence, that the plaintiff performed the services claimed, and the administrator was liable for the debt. No substantial reason was advanced justifying an adjournment of the main claim, and no evidence was provided in opposition.

Parties
Plaintiff: Mircon Pty Limited; Defendant/cross Claimant: Stuart Karim Ariff; First Cross Defendant: State Securities Pty Limited; Second Cross Defendant: Bulla Tip & Quarry Operations Pty Ltd (in Liq); Third Cross Defendant: Bulla Tip & Quarry Pty Ltd (in Liq)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Corporations List Proceedings / Judgment on Claim and Interlocutory Application; Cross Claim Adjourned
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff on the main claim; cross-claim adjourned
Legal Topics
Voluntary Administration, Administrator's Liability for Debts, Indemnity Cross Claims, Procedural Orders
Corporations Law Civil Procedure Voluntary Administration Administrator's Liability for Debts Indemnity Cross Claims Procedural Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mircon Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Stuart Karim Ariff

Defendant/cross Claimant

State Securities Pty Limited

First Cross Defendant

Bulla Tip & Quarry Operations Pty Ltd (in Liq)

Second Cross Defendant

Bulla Tip & Quarry Pty Ltd (in Liq)

Third Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Corporations List Proceedings / Judgment on Claim and Interlocutory Application; Cross Claim Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the voluntary administrator (Mr Ariff) incurred debts for services rendered within s 443A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether an order should be made pursuant to s 447A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to pay for those services
  3. 3 Whether the administrator's cross-claim should be adjourned under Rule 13.6 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The court was satisfied, on uncontradicted evidence, that the plaintiff performed the services claimed, and the administrator was liable for the debt. No substantial reason was advanced justifying an adjournment of the main claim, and no evidence was provided in opposition.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff on the main claim; cross-claim adjourned

Orders

  • Leave granted for the plaintiff to commence and continue the proceedings in the Corporations List pursuant to Rule 1.8 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 (NSW)
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff $115,236.53 pursuant to s 447A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) with interest under s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)