Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd [2009] NSWSC 822

Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd [2009] NSWSC 822

The court was not satisfied that the statutory machinery for fixing remuneration under s 499(3) had broken down and proved unworkable because, on the evidence, the committee raised two issues of concern and it was not clear that the special purpose liquidator had provided any explanation about one of them; a single failed vote, with three of four committee members abstaining, was an insufficient foundation for resort to s 511.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 511 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) by Special Purpose Liquidator Concerning Remuneration in a Creditors' Voluntary Winding Up / Ex Tempore Judgment; Application Adjourned
Outcome
Application to court adjourned.
Legal Topics
["creditors' Voluntary Winding Up" 'liquidator Remuneration' 'committee of Inspection' 'application Under S 511 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)']
['corporations' 'insolvency'] ["creditors' Voluntary Winding Up" 'liquidator Remuneration' 'committee of Inspection' 'application Under S 511 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)']

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 Under S 511 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) by Special Purpose Liquidator Concerning Remuneration in a Creditors' Voluntary Winding Up / Ex Tempore Judgment; Application Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the statutory machinery under s 499(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for fixing the special purpose liquidator's remuneration had broken down and proved unworkable so as to make resort to s 511 appropriate." 'Whether the special purpose liquidator had provided sufficient information or explanation to the committee of inspection before approaching the court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The court was not satisfied that the statutory machinery for fixing remuneration under s 499(3) had broken down and proved unworkable because, on the evidence, the committee raised two issues of concern and it was not clear that the special purpose liquidator had provided any explanation about one of them; a single failed vote, with three of four committee members abstaining, was an insufficient foundation for resort to s 511.

Court Disposition

Application to court adjourned.

Orders

  • ["The special purpose liquidator's application was stood over for a period so that the necessary and appropriate dialogue may take place."]