Red Lea Chickens P/L v. Kapos, T. & Anor [1994] FCA 964

Red Lea Chickens P/L v. Kapos, T. & Anor [1994] FCA 964

The evidence establishes that as at relevant dates there were reasonable grounds to expect the Company would not be able to pay its debts as and when they became due; the conditions of liability under s 592 of the Corporations Law are satisfied for the respondents as directors, and no defences were raised.

Parties
Applicant: Red Lea Chickens Pty Limited; First Respondent: Theo Kapos; Second Respondent: Chrisanthi Kapos
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the applicant against both respondents. Costs awarded to the applicant.
Legal Topics
Directors' Liability, Company Liquidation, Insolvent Trading
Corporations Law Directors' Liability Company Liquidation Insolvent Trading

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Red Lea Chickens Pty Limited

Applicant

Theo Kapos

First Respondent

Chrisanthi Kapos

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the directors of Tasty Chickens Pty Limited are liable under s 592 of the Corporations Law for debts incurred when there were reasonable grounds to expect the company would not be able to pay its debts as they became due

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence establishes that as at relevant dates there were reasonable grounds to expect the Company would not be able to pay its debts as and when they became due; the conditions of liability under s 592 of the Corporations Law are satisfied for the respondents as directors, and no defences were raised.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant against both respondents. Costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • Judgment for the applicant against both respondents in the sum of $194,411.75.
  • Judgment for the applicant against the first respondent in the sum of $354,391.37.