26 May 2022
The Court approved the proposal because it met the prescribed form and statement of affairs requirements, creditors received notice and made a commercial assessment, the statutory voting thresholds under s331 were satisfied despite one creditor's opposition, and no grounds under s333(3) to refuse approval were established.
3 Jul 2017
Appeal dismissed. The Court held it was reasonably arguable that the vendor waived the contractual requirement for timely written notice by issuing amended settlement statements showing zero-rated GST and requesting the purchasers' GST numbers, such that the respondents had a caveatable interest and the High Court order sustaining the caveats was properly made; the Court did not decide whether the statutory notice requirement is waivable but expressed reservations that it may primarily protect the tax base.
1 Dec 2014
The notice complied with s245(3)(c) despite different wording; the respondent failed to demonstrate any discretionary basis under ss251/253 to refuse relief given substantial unpaid rent and no legal entitlement to set-off for repairs, and the Court has no jurisdiction to compel the landlords to grant a new or extended lease, therefore orders for possession, cancellation and monetary judgment were appropriate.
9 May 2013
The oral cessation of weekly compensation, followed by written confirmation on 3 September 2012, constituted a valid decision under the Act and, on the evidence, Dr Kerr's contemporaneous specialist assessments established the appellant was no longer incapacitated as of 14 May 2012, so the cessation under s104 was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
19 May 2010
The Court approved the proposal because the statutory procedural requirements were satisfied, the creditors (representing over 95% of estimated claims) validly approved the proposal, the proposal is reasonable and delivers a significant return (~70%) to creditors, notice was given and there were no objections, and s333(4) requirements were met; accordingly approval was expedient and should be granted.
3 Oct 2001
The Court held the insurer properly determined the appellant had a capacity for work as a gatekeeper: the insurer had provided the vocational rehabilitation it was liable to provide under s89(3); the notice requirements of s93(2) were met in substance by the combination of the case manager's letter and the provided fact sheet and satisfied the statutory purpose; and the medical and occupational assessments, with non-injury conditions excluded under s15(2)(a), supported the finding that the appellant could perform the gatekeeper role, so the reviewer's confirmation and insurer's determination…