Morgan v McMillan Investment Holdings Pty LtdCitation:[2024] HCA 33Before:Gageler CJ, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Beech-Jones JJDate:11 Sep 2024Case Number:S119/2023Read more
The Court held that the gateway requirement in s 579E(1)(b)(iv) was satisfied because the chose in action was sufficiently connected to the joint business, and that s 601AH(5) deems the company to have undertaken activities during deregistration, justifying the making of the pooling order.
- Parties
- Applicant: [Not Provided]; Respondent: [Not Provided]
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 September 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Winding Up, Pooling Order, Chose in Action, Deregistration, Reinstatement
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
[Not Provided]
Applicant
[Not Provided]
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the gateway requirement in s 579E(1)(b)(iv) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for making a pooling order was satisfied
- 2 Whether the alleged chose in action was property used or for use in connection with the joint business, scheme or undertaking
- 3 Whether the chose in action was used or available for use by two or more companies
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the gateway requirement in s 579E(1)(b)(iv) was satisfied because the chose in action was sufficiently connected to the joint business, and that s 601AH(5) deems the company to have undertaken activities during deregistration, justifying the making of the pooling order.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Pooling order under s 579E(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment