Cussen v Signature Resorts Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 89

Cussen v Signature Resorts Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 89

The appointment of the first two plaintiffs as voluntary administrators was valid because non-compliance with Corporations Law s 448C would not invalidate the appointment, s 448C(3) did not disqualify them merely because of a previous administration, and s 448C(1)(g) did not apply unless their partner was himself...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Summons Seeking Orders That the First Two Plaintiffs Were Validly Appointed Voluntary Administrators / Judgment on Summons
Outcome
The Court declared that the first two plaintiffs were validly appointed voluntary administrators of the defendant on 1 February 2000 and stood the proceedings over.
Legal Topics
['voluntary Administrators' 'validity of Appointment' 'disqualification Under Corporations Law S 448 C' 'court Appointed Liquidator' 'partner of Liquidator' 'external Administration Costs']
['corporations' 'insolvency'] ['voluntary Administrators' 'validity of Appointment' 'disqualification Under Corporations Law S 448 C' 'court Appointed Liquidator' 'partner of Liquidator' 'external Administration Costs']

Source-derived case record

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

Summons Seeking Orders That the First Two Plaintiffs Were Validly Appointed Voluntary Administrators / Judgment on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first two plaintiffs were validly appointed as voluntary administrators of the defendant on 1 February 2000.' 'Whether Corporations Law s 448C invalidated the appointment of administrators where there was alleged non-compliance or disqualification.' 'Whether previous appointment as administrator within the last two years disqualified a person from reappointment under Corporations Law s 448C(3)(b).' 'Whether the first two plaintiffs were disqualified because they were partners of the third plaintiff, the court appointed liquidator, under Corporations Law s 448C(1)(g).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appointment of the first two plaintiffs as voluntary administrators was valid because non-compliance with Corporations Law s 448C would not invalidate the appointment, s 448C(3) did not disqualify them merely because of a previous administration, and s 448C(1)(g) did not apply unless their partner was himself disqualified.

Court Disposition

The Court declared that the first two plaintiffs were validly appointed voluntary administrators of the defendant on 1 February 2000 and stood the proceedings over.

Orders

  • ['Declare that the first two plaintiffs were validly appointed voluntary administrators of the defendant on 1 February 2000.' "Stand the proceedings over to the Registrar's list on 3 April 2000." 'No costs of the application to date.' 'Further costs reserved.']