Re United Medical Protection & ors (No.6) [2002] NSWSC 562

Re United Medical Protection & ors (No.6) [2002] NSWSC 562

The winding up applications were stood over because the provisional liquidator was not yet able to give a concluded view on solvency, was expected to be able to report in about six weeks, negotiations for a Commonwealth deed of indemnity were expected to progress, there were no directors able to resume control of the companies, and continuing the provisional liquidations was supported by evidence of substantial benefits to the companies, members, creditors and the public.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Corporations Winding Up Applications With Provisional Liquidations / Further Hearing; Applications Stood Over for Further Mention
Outcome
Applications stood over to 26 July 2002.
Legal Topics
['provisional Liquidation' 'winding Up Applications' 'postponement of Hearing' 'court Approval Under S 477(2 B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)' 'communication With Members']
['corporations'] ['provisional Liquidation' 'winding Up Applications' 'postponement of Hearing' 'court Approval Under S 477(2 B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)' 'communication With Members']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Corporations Winding Up Applications With Provisional Liquidations / Further Hearing; Applications Stood Over for Further Mention

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the winding up applications for the three companies should be stood over for approximately six weeks while the provisional liquidator completed solvency investigations and negotiations concerning Commonwealth support.' 'Whether it was necessary at the present stage to order the convening of a meeting of UMP members.']

Ratio Decidendi

The winding up applications were stood over because the provisional liquidator was not yet able to give a concluded view on solvency, was expected to be able to report in about six weeks, negotiations for a Commonwealth deed of indemnity were expected to progress, there were no directors able to resume control of the companies, and continuing the provisional liquidations was supported by evidence of substantial benefits to the companies, members, creditors and the public.

Court Disposition

Applications stood over to 26 July 2002.

Orders

  • ['The winding up applications for the three companies were stood over for further mention before Austin J on 26 July 2002.']