Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1120
The resolution of the committee of inspection was not valid and cannot be cured or validated under s 1322 of the Corporations Act. Accordingly, no legal entitlement to payment exists. It falls to the court under s 511 of the Corporations Act to determine the quantum of remuneration. The liquidator's evidence and explanations are insufficient to permit accurate quantification; he holds the onus of proof. Further particulars and re-presentation of material are required before remuneration can be assessed.
- Parties
- First Plaintiff: Onefone Australia Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff: DCA Resources Australia Pty Ltd; Third Plaintiff: Pacific Finance Group Pty Ltd; Fourth Plaintiff: Concept Systems (Australia) Pty Limited; First Defendant: One.Tel Limited; Second Defendant: Steven Sherman; Third Defendant: Peter Walker; Special Purpose Liquidator / Applicant: Paul Gerard Weston; Interested Parties: Committee of Inspection Members; Intervener / Amicus Curiae: ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission)
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 October 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Corporations (winding Up) / Remuneration Application – Determination of Liquidator’s Remuneration Under S 511 Corporations Act
- Outcome
- Application not finally determined; short minutes of order to be presented; claim for remuneration to be re-formulated and served for further assessment.
- Legal Topics
- Winding Up, Remuneration of Liquidator, Creditors Voluntary Winding Up, Committee of Inspection, Quantification of Remuneration, Procedural Irregularity, Directions for Quantification, Onus of Proof
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Onefone Australia Pty Ltd
First Plaintiff
DCA Resources Australia Pty Ltd
Second Plaintiff
Pacific Finance Group Pty Ltd
Third Plaintiff
Concept Systems (Australia) Pty Limited
Fourth Plaintiff
One.Tel Limited
First Defendant
Steven Sherman
Second Defendant
Peter Walker
Third Defendant
Paul Gerard Weston
Special Purpose Liquidator / Applicant
Committee of Inspection Members
Interested Parties
ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission)
Intervener / Amicus Curiae
Procedural Posture
Corporations (winding Up) / Remuneration Application – Determination of Liquidator’s Remuneration Under S 511 Corporations Act
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the committee of inspection resolution was valid for fixing liquidator’s remuneration
- 2 Whether remuneration may be determined by the court under s 511 of the Corporations Act
- 3 What activities are within scope of liquidator’s functions for remuneration
Ratio Decidendi
The resolution of the committee of inspection was not valid and cannot be cured or validated under s 1322 of the Corporations Act. Accordingly, no legal entitlement to payment exists. It falls to the court under s 511 of the Corporations Act to determine the quantum of remuneration. The liquidator's evidence and explanations are insufficient to permit accurate quantification; he holds the onus of proof. Further particulars and re-presentation of material are required before remuneration can be assessed.
Court Disposition
Application not finally determined; short minutes of order to be presented; claim for remuneration to be re-formulated and served for further assessment.
Orders
- Special purpose liquidator, committee members and ASIC to formulate and deliver short minutes of order for procedure
- Special purpose liquidator to re-present material and re-formulate claim for periods in question to ASIC and committee members
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment