Hookway v M I D Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1456

Hookway v M I D Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1456

The Defendant companies should be wound up and Mr Hamilton appointed liquidator because Mr Hookway agreed to those orders and the evidence supported them. The Plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement of her taxed costs from the companies' property because the winding up application was successful, costs ordinarily follow the event, s 466 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) creates a prima facie position that the applicant's taxed costs be reimbursed, and the circumstances did not justify departure from that position. Even if the genuine steps statement did not precisely identify the issue of winding up on just and equitable grounds, the Plaintiff took sufficient genuine steps in the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to Wind Up Companies on Just and Equitable Grounds Under S 461(1)(k) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Final Judgment and Orders, Heard on Papers
Outcome
Application granted; each Defendant company ordered to be wound up, liquidator appointed, and Plaintiff's taxed costs to be reimbursed from the Defendants' property.
Legal Topics
['winding Up on Just and Equitable Grounds' "reimbursement of Applicant's Taxed Costs in Winding Up Proceedings" 'genuine Steps to Resolve Disputes' 'overarching Purpose Obligations']
['corporations' 'practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['winding Up on Just and Equitable Grounds' "reimbursement of Applicant's Taxed Costs in Winding Up Proceedings" 'genuine Steps to Resolve Disputes' 'overarching Purpose Obligations']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application to Wind Up Companies on Just and Equitable Grounds Under S 461(1)(k) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Final Judgment and Orders, Heard on Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Defendant companies should be wound up under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).' 'Whether Barry Kenneth Hamilton should be appointed liquidator of each Defendant company.' "Whether the liquidator should reimburse out of the property of the Defendant companies the taxed costs incurred by the Plaintiff, notwithstanding Mr Hookway's contention that genuine steps to resolve the dispute were not taken."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant companies should be wound up and Mr Hamilton appointed liquidator because Mr Hookway agreed to those orders and the evidence supported them. The Plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement of her taxed costs from the companies' property because the winding up application was successful, costs ordinarily follow the event, s 466 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) creates a prima facie position that the applicant's taxed costs be reimbursed, and the circumstances did not justify departure from that position. Even if the genuine steps statement did not precisely identify the issue of winding up on just and equitable grounds, the Plaintiff took sufficient genuine steps in the...

Court Disposition

Application granted; each Defendant company ordered to be wound up, liquidator appointed, and Plaintiff's taxed costs to be reimbursed from the Defendants' property.

Orders

  • ['The Defendants M I D Pty Ltd (ACN 004 576 970), Hookway Aerospace Pty Ltd (ACN 004 996 114), Ballyvergan Pty Ltd (ACN 009 575 731), and Sol-Rio Pty Ltd (ACN 009 571 493) be wound up under the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).' 'Barry Kenneth Hamilton of B K Hamilton & Associates, Level 1, 63 Salamanca...