17 Apr 2020
The application for an interim injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish a serious question to be tried: the assignment and appointment of the receiver were valid, notice was properly given or not required, s25 PPSA did not establish an arguable case of bad faith, and the balance of convenience and overall justice favored allowing the receiver to proceed with an open market sale.
7 Aug 2008
The Court held the plaintiff should have known at the outset the summary judgment application had no prospect of success because evident factual disputes existed and the plaintiff failed to obtain or verify executed documents (notably the guarantee schedule containing clause 17.2 which provided an arguable or absolute defence following assignment). The application was unnecessary and hopeless for summary disposition, justifying an award of costs against the plaintiff in favor of the second defendant in the sum claimed ($78,534.35).
11 Mar 2008
Summary judgment was entered for the plaintiffs because the defendant's alleged cross-claims and set-offs were unsupported or involved payments not subject to the joint guarantees (or were paid by strangers/third parties), and therefore did not defeat the plaintiffs' quantified contribution claims; only limited factual issues (Shalimar and Charles Parsons) required further evidence and were not sufficient to bar summary judgment.
10 May 2006
The payment of $138,000 was made within the specified period when Zest Bistro was insolvent, was not made in the ordinary course of business, and resulted in a preference to the plaintiff; the plaintiff failed to prove good faith or alteration of position under s296(3), so the payment is voidable and must be repaid with interest and costs.