Xu v Megaward Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 232

Xu v Megaward Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 232

The appeal lay as of right, not requiring leave, as neither s 101(2)(n) nor (r) operated to restrict it in these circumstances. On the merits, the primary judge's analysis of the evidence substantiated that Megaward had a surplus of assets over liabilities, sufficient recovery of aged receivables, and positive...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Zongqing Xu; Respondent: Megaward Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Supreme Court of Nsw, Equity Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Statutory Demand, Presumption of Insolvency, Leave to Appeal, Construction of Corporations Act Provisions
Corporations Law Civil Procedure Winding Up Statutory Demand Presumption of Insolvency Leave to Appeal Construction of Corporations Act Provisions

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zongqing Xu

Appellant

Megaward Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Supreme Court of Nsw, Equity Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal is required under s 101(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the company (Megaward Pty Ltd) was insolvent for the purposes of s 459C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether the primary judge erred in finding that the company had displaced the presumption of insolvency

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal lay as of right, not requiring leave, as neither s 101(2)(n) nor (r) operated to restrict it in these circumstances. On the merits, the primary judge's analysis of the evidence substantiated that Megaward had a surplus of assets over liabilities, sufficient recovery of aged receivables, and positive cashflow to pay debts as and when due; thus, the presumption of insolvency was displaced and no error was shown in refusing the winding up application.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent's notice of motion filed 24 July 2018 dismissed.
  • Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed.