National Australia Bank v King [2003] NSWSC 525

National Australia Bank v King [2003] NSWSC 525

The Court should not determine the plaintiff's application for leave under s.440J(1) without ensuring that the administrators of the companies have notice and an opportunity to express their views on whether enforcement of the directors' guarantees would adversely affect the due and orderly conduct of the administrations. The application was therefore adjourned and notice was directed to be given to the administrators.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Application by Creditor for Leave Under S.440 J(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) to Enforce Guarantees Against Directors During Voluntary Administration / Direction for Notice to Administrators and Adjournment
Outcome
Direction that notice of application be given to administrator. Application adjourned.
Legal Topics
['voluntary Administration' "directors' Guarantees" 'moratorium Under S.440 J(1)' 'leave to Enforce Guarantee' "administrator's Opportunity to Make Submissions"]
['corporations Law' 'insolvency' 'guarantees'] ['voluntary Administration' "directors' Guarantees" 'moratorium Under S.440 J(1)' 'leave to Enforce Guarantee' "administrator's Opportunity to Make Submissions"]

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application by Creditor for Leave Under S.440 J(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) to Enforce Guarantees Against Directors During Voluntary Administration / Direction for Notice to Administrators and Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave under s.440J(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to enforce directors' guarantees during the administration of the King bus companies." 'Whether the administrators of the companies should be given notice and an opportunity to make submissions before the Court determines the application for leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court should not determine the plaintiff's application for leave under s.440J(1) without ensuring that the administrators of the companies have notice and an opportunity to express their views on whether enforcement of the directors' guarantees would adversely affect the due and orderly conduct of the administrations. The application was therefore adjourned and notice was directed to be given to the administrators.

Court Disposition

Direction that notice of application be given to administrator. Application adjourned.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff is to furnish to the administrator of each company to which the application relates, not later than Friday 20 June 2003, a copy of the originating process and supporting affidavits and a copy of the reasons.' "The plaintiff's application for leave under s.440J(1) is stood over to 10 am on Friday 27...