12 Jul 2022
The applicant failed to discharge the onus to demonstrate necessity or expediency for interim liquidators: admissible evidence did not show assets in jeopardy, urgency, or that the liquidation application would likely succeed; absence of an undertaking as to damages was material; accordingly the interim liquidator appointment was refused.
9 Aug 2021
The Commissioner established that the companies owed unpaid tax debts and had not complied with statutory demands, there was no filed opposition or evidence of a genuine dispute about indebtedness, and the allegations raised by the director concerned personal disputes outside the scope of this proceeding; accordingly the court ordered the companies into liquidation, appointed liquidators and approved their remuneration and individual exercise of powers.
31 Aug 2020
The Court found on the balance of probabilities that Tower persistently and seriously failed to keep adequate accounting records as required by s194 (no ledgers or proper records, inconsistent financials, inability to reconstruct position), and the interim liquidators' investigations supported likely insolvency; those findings satisfied s241(4)(b) (and s241(4)(a) alternative) and justified a liquidation order and appointment of liquidators.
1 Mar 2017
The Court exercised its residual discretion to adjourn the liquidation application and give the company a final opportunity to pay all tax arrears and be up to date by 12 May 2017, concluding that unpaid ongoing tax obligations can justify liquidation even where a prior statutory demand debt was paid, and that absence of explanation for continuing non‑payment justified close scrutiny and a conditional adjournment.
10 Nov 2016
Active failed to prove a substantial dispute or a quantifiable set-off because assertions of a three-year workmanship warranty were unsupported by documentary evidence and specific, persuasive quantification; accordingly the statutory demand could not be set aside under s 290(4).
8 Nov 2016
The sale was a transaction under s 292(3) and occurred within the specified two year period; credible valuation evidence established the market value at $31,200 and the sale price was $20,000, producing an undervalue of $11,200; evidence established the company was unable to pay its debts at the time; the defendant advanced no arguable s 296(3) defence; accordingly the liquidators were entitled to recover $11,200 under s 297.
4 Nov 2016
Leave to file a statement of defence out of time was refused because the defendant is presumptively and in substance insolvent and therefore leave should not be granted to delay liquidation, and the defendant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay; on the merits clause 10 is not an unenforceable penalty, the force majeure defence is arguable but not determinative, and the no-consideration argument is untenable.
23 Jun 2016
Given the substantive dispute, the existing District Court proceedings and legal representation, the statutory demand was an inappropriate enforcement mechanism and would likely have been set aside; accordingly the applicant was entitled to costs of the application, subject to reduction for work rendered unnecessary by the settlement (no allowance for bundle preparation).
2 Oct 2015
Frimley failed to discharge the onus under r 31.11 to show a strong prima facie case of a genuine dispute on substantial grounds; Asher J's findings establish clear liability and quantum for at least two of the three sums and quantum is not in genuine dispute; the appeal has weak prospects and does not warrant a stay; accordingly the stay application is declined and the s 241 liquidation application proceeds to substantive hearing.
12 Nov 2014
The Court appointed interim liquidators because plaintiffs established a prima facie case for liquidation and demonstrated that the company was insolvent with specific deficits and tax arrears, there was credible evidence of asset diversion and doubtful related‑party transactions creating a real risk of dissipation, and it was expedient under s 246 and r 31.23 to appoint interim liquidators to preserve assets and protect creditors pending the substantive liquidation application.