Burton re Palmbird Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1068
No further meeting should be convened under s.509(1) as the statutory scheme fixes a single date for deregistration, and successive meetings and orders are inconsistent with the provisions in s509; the court has no power to make extending orders once the three-month period after final return lodgment has expired.
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Peter George Burton; Plaintiff: Brian Hugh Allen; Company: Palmbird Pty Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 13 October 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Corporations Winding Up / Application for Guidance Following Voluntary Winding Up and Prior to Deregistration
- Outcome
- No further order
- Legal Topics
- Winding Up, Voluntary Liquidation, Deregistration, Liquidators’ Duties
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter George Burton
Plaintiff
Brian Hugh Allen
Plaintiff
Palmbird Pty Limited
Company
Procedural Posture
Corporations Winding Up / Application for Guidance Following Voluntary Winding Up and Prior to Deregistration
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a further final meeting should be convened by liquidators after discovery of an unknown asset post final return
- 2 Court's power under s.509(6) to extend deregistration date and to make successive orders
- 3 Distribution of insurance premium refund received after winding up
Ratio Decidendi
No further meeting should be convened under s.509(1) as the statutory scheme fixes a single date for deregistration, and successive meetings and orders are inconsistent with the provisions in s509; the court has no power to make extending orders once the three-month period after final return lodgment has expired.
Court Disposition
No further order
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