NIDAMON PTY LTD and ANOR v WAYLAND and ORS [1994] NSWCA 234

NIDAMON PTY LTD and ANOR v WAYLAND and ORS [1994] NSWCA 234

Hodgson J was correct in holding that, on the facts of this case, the Receiver could not be criticised for not having sought discharge before July 1982, was not the substantial cause of prolonging the receivership after July 19, and was entitled to reasonable fees for both receivership and proper incidental work. There was no improper purpose by the Receiver in remaining; the parties' unreasonable conduct substantially caused the continuation, and the outcomes as ordered below should stand.

Parties
Appellant: Nidamon Pty Ltd; Respondent: Wayland; Party: H Dorn; Party: B Dorn; Party: C Dorn
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 1994
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Receivership, Court Appointed Receivers, Costs and Remuneration of Receivers, Company Shareholder Disputes
Equity Corporations Law Receivership Court Appointed Receivers Costs and Remuneration of Receivers Company Shareholder Disputes

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nidamon Pty Ltd

Appellant

Wayland

Respondent

H Dorn

Party

B Dorn

Party

C Dorn

Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Receiver can be criticised for not procuring discharge before his costs are paid
  2. 2 Proper basis for recovery of fees and expenses for work outside scope of receivership and from whom
  3. 3 Whether Receiver was the substantial cause of unnecessary continuation of receivership

Ratio Decidendi

Hodgson J was correct in holding that, on the facts of this case, the Receiver could not be criticised for not having sought discharge before July 1982, was not the substantial cause of prolonging the receivership after July 19, and was entitled to reasonable fees for both receivership and proper incidental work. There was no improper purpose by the Receiver in remaining; the parties' unreasonable conduct substantially caused the continuation, and the outcomes as ordered below should stand.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs
  • Orders and judgments below affirmed