30 Jul 2019
The statutory test in s6(2) and s6A was satisfied because the statutory demands had been served and the debtors failed to show any available assets or credible prospects to pay the petitioning debt; the mortgagee sale produced proceeds that were applied to the mortgagee's debt leaving no funds for the petitioner, therefore bankruptcy orders were warranted.
10 Dec 2018
The opposing contributory failed to establish a bona fide defence on substantial grounds — the duress allegation was misconceived and unsustainable; the loan was advanced and a substantial debt remained unpaid; therefore the court must make the ordinary winding-up order against the company.
20 Feb 2017
The court made a winding up order because the petitioning debt remained unpaid, the respondent failed to demonstrate a bona fide dispute or produce substantive evidence, supporting creditors withdrew their support, the parties had ample time to negotiate, and a further adjournment would not have served any useful purpose.
8 Jan 2015
The court found that there existed bona fide disputes over the petitioning debt arising from contested share subscription/acquisition and numerous account debit entries, and there was insufficient evidence of insolvency; accordingly the petition to wind up was dismissed and the petitioner ordered to pay costs (order nisi).
12 Dec 2011
The court held that the petitions must succeed because statutory demands had been served, the amounts claimed were presently due and payable (any deduction for security value was speculative until realisation), the majority of banking creditors had rejected the restructuring proposals, and there was no legitimate reason to withhold the normal winding-up orders sought by the petitioner.
16 Mar 2011
The Court refused to interfere with the judge's exercise of discretion because the debt was clearly established, procedural requirements were complied with, the stay sought was effectively open‑ended and likely to last years, the Official Receiver had not indicated consent and creditors would be prejudiced; no error of law or principle was shown, so the appeal must be dismissed.
14 Dec 2009
Because there was no dispute as to the indebtedness and the Company was unable to make payment, the petitioner was entitled to a winding-up order and the petition was granted; the petitioner's costs were ordered to be paid out of the Company's assets.
11 Jul 2008
The Court found the Company failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds because the petitioner produced supplier certificates showing compliance (316L), corroborating evidence from UCL and use of the racks by the Airport, and the Company's assertions were unsupported or disingenuous; accordingly the petitioning debt was payable and a winding up order was granted.
12 Sept 2006
Because the winding-up order had not been sealed or perfected, the parties had reached a confirmed settlement with undertakings to pay the agreed sum and discontinue related proceedings, the Company appeared solvent and the Official Receiver raised no objection (only seeking costs), the court properly exercised its inherent jurisdiction to rescind the winding-up order and dismiss the petition, and ordered deduction of Official Receiver's costs from the petitioner’s deposit.
4 Sept 2006
Petitioner proved the debt and service of demand; the company failed to establish a bona fide defence, did not specify the correct disputed amount, sought an adjournment without adequate justification and failed to appear; therefore the court exercised its discretion to wind up the company and ordered costs to be paid from the company's assets.