Grace Fashion Pty Limited (In Liquidation) v Miss Cherry Fashion Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 662

Grace Fashion Pty Limited (In Liquidation) v Miss Cherry Fashion Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 662

Miss Cherry was in default because it had been served, had not appeared, had not filed a notice of address for service or a defence, and had taken no step in the proceeding. The originating process properly pleaded the elements of a claim under ss 588FA, 588FE and 588FF of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Court...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Proceeding Under Ss 588 Fa, 588 FE and 588 FF of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) to Recover Alleged Unfair Preference Payments / Interlocutory Application for Default Judgment Under R 5.23(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant.
Legal Topics
['unfair Preference Payments' 'default Judgment' 'pre Judgment Interest' 'liquidation' 'running Account']
['corporations' 'corporate Insolvency' 'civil Procedure'] ['unfair Preference Payments' 'default Judgment' 'pre Judgment Interest' 'liquidation' 'running Account']

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

Proceeding Under Ss 588 Fa, 588 FE and 588 FF of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) to Recover Alleged Unfair Preference Payments / Interlocutory Application for Default Judgment Under R 5.23(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Miss Cherry Fashion Pty Ltd was in default for failing to appear, file a notice of address for service or file a defence.' 'Whether, on the face of the originating process, the plaintiffs had a claim for the relief sought under ss 588FA, 588FE and 588FF of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).' 'Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction in respect of the claim.' 'Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment for the liquidated amount and pre-judgment interest.']

Ratio Decidendi

Miss Cherry was in default because it had been served, had not appeared, had not filed a notice of address for service or a defence, and had taken no step in the proceeding. The originating process properly pleaded the elements of a claim under ss 588FA, 588FE and 588FF of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Court had jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs established a liquidated claim of $206,228.37 plus pre-judgment interest of $34,024.19. Default judgment was therefore entered for the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant.' 'Pursuant to s 588FF of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the defendant pay to the first plaintiff the sum of $240,252.56, being the amount of $206,228.37 together with pre-judgment interest on that sum from 17 September 2014 to 13 June 2017 totalling $34,024.19.'...