In the matter of Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2017] NSWSC 245

In the matter of Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2017] NSWSC 245

The court has inherent jurisdiction to order delivery up of certificates of title to a court-appointed receiver. Anticipated legal challenges or injunctive applications do not entitle the respondents to withhold delivery of property within the receiver's control. The respondents must comply with the receiver's...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: The Owners – Strata Plan No 21574; Defendant: Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd; Applicant: David Henry Sampson; First Respondent: ABCD Corporation Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Derek Minus
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Hearing and Orders on Interlocutory Process
Outcome
Orders made in favour of the applicant: Respondents to deliver all certificates of title to the applicant's solicitors and to pay the applicant's costs on the indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Receivers and Managers, Court Appointed Receivers, Powers and Duties of Receivers, Inherent Jurisdiction, Delivery Up of Title Documents, Indemnity Costs
Corporations Law Equity Civil Procedure Receivers and Managers Court Appointed Receivers Powers and Duties of Receivers Inherent Jurisdiction Delivery Up of Title Documents +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Owners – Strata Plan No 21574

Plaintiff

Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd

Defendant

David Henry Sampson

Applicant

ABCD Corporation Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Derek Minus

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Hearing and Orders on Interlocutory Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has power to order delivery up of certificates of title to a court-appointed receiver.
  2. 2 Whether an anticipated challenge to sale by the receiver is a reason to refuse to deliver certificates of title.
  3. 3 Whether conduct of respondents justifies an order for indemnity costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court has inherent jurisdiction to order delivery up of certificates of title to a court-appointed receiver. Anticipated legal challenges or injunctive applications do not entitle the respondents to withhold delivery of property within the receiver's control. The respondents must comply with the receiver's entitlement and seek proper court relief if required.

Court Disposition

Orders made in favour of the applicant: Respondents to deliver all certificates of title to the applicant's solicitors and to pay the applicant's costs on the indemnity basis.

Orders

  • By 4pm on 10 March 2017, the respondents deliver to the applicant's solicitors all certificates of title in their possession, power or control for all land in certificates of title, lots 21, 31, and 34 in strata plan 21574 situated at suite 602, Culwulla Chambers, 67 Castlereagh Street, Sydney, NSW.
  • Respondents to pay the applicant/receiver's costs of the Interlocutory Process on the indemnity basis, as agreed or as assessed.