1 Oct 2018
Costs were refused because Fehsenfeld primarily supported an argument already advanced by the liquidators, offered no independent evidence or materially different submissions, sought joinder largely to preserve appeal rights, and awarding costs would unfairly diminish the distribution pool for other investors.
10 Aug 2011
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Family Court's interim orders: the boat remains vested to the appellant as his separate property but the Family Court was entitled to fix an interim compensating payment of $43,500 from joint trust funds and to order an interim distribution of $30,000 to the respondent; refusal to compel delivery on the appellant's proposed detailed conditions was correct and issues about final valuation and adjustments remain for the substantive hearing.
11 Feb 2010
Because the three companies operated as facets of the same enterprise with intermingled management, finance and business operations, sale proceeds had advantaged all companies and detailed separation of claims would be impractical and inequitable, it was just and equitable under s271 to pool claims and order pro rata distribution to unsecured creditors; additionally, distributions to directors, shareholders and related parties were excluded and related shareholder claims could be set-off.
11 Dec 2008
The leases were surrendered on completion of the freeholding so lease rights merged in the reversion and were extinguished; the improvements did not belong to the Society; accordingly the liquidator is entitled to distribute the surplus equally among members under the amended rule 36 and to proceed with the required final report and lodgement for dissolution.