Uvanna Pty Ltd t/as Northwest Immigration Services & Anor v Tsang Chi Ming & Ors [1997] FCA 135

Uvanna Pty Ltd t/as Northwest Immigration Services & Anor v Tsang Chi Ming & Ors [1997] FCA 135

Section 440D(1) did not prevent the appeal from proceeding because the relevant proceeding was the appeal, which was instituted by the company for its own benefit and was not against it, and was not litigation in relation to identifiable property owned by it. As a discretionary matter, the adjournment was refused because the appeal was listed three days later, was only a one day appeal, most costs had already been incurred, and the applicants provided no financial information or security to allay possible prejudice to the respondents from further delay.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Damages Award; Notice of Motion for Postponement of Appeal Hearing / Application for Adjournment of Appeal Listed for Hearing on 20 February 1997
Outcome
Notice of motion for adjournment dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'voluntary Administration' 'stay of Proceedings During Administration' 'corporations Law S 440 D(1)' 'appeal Procedure']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['adjournment' 'voluntary Administration' 'stay of Proceedings During Administration' 'corporations Law S 440 D(1)' 'appeal Procedure']

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

Appeal Against Damages Award; Notice of Motion for Postponement of Appeal Hearing / Application for Adjournment of Appeal Listed for Hearing on 20 February 1997

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether hearing the appeal without leave of the Court would infringe s 440D(1) of the Corporations Law.' 'Whether the appeal was a proceeding in a court against Uvanna Pty Limited.' "Whether the appeal was a proceeding in relation to any of Uvanna Pty Limited's property." "Whether the Court should adjourn the appeal as a matter of discretion pending the administrator's determination and creditors' decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

Section 440D(1) did not prevent the appeal from proceeding because the relevant proceeding was the appeal, which was instituted by the company for its own benefit and was not against it, and was not litigation in relation to identifiable property owned by it. As a discretionary matter, the adjournment was refused because the appeal was listed three days later, was only a one day appeal, most costs had already been incurred, and the applicants provided no financial information or security to allay possible prejudice to the respondents from further delay.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion for adjournment dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed on 14 February 1997 be dismissed with costs.']