26 May 2016
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and cross-appeal and approved two discrete questions for determination: whether the payment made by RAM to the applicant should be set aside in whole or in part and, if so, whether the recoverable amount is $954,047 or $454,047.
10 Sept 2010
Both parties were at fault — the liquidators erred in directing the first notice to the applicant and the applicant erred by pursuing a court application based on an outdated statute causing unnecessary expense — therefore each party must bear their own costs; no order for costs was made.
21 Aug 2009
The court concluded on the evidence that Claybrook was insolvent in August 2007 and the payments were therefore presumptively voidable; the respondent failed to rebut the presumption because the repayments were informal, poorly documented, not in the ordinary course of business and not part of an integral continuing business relationship; accordingly the payments are set aside and the respondent ordered to repay $160,000 pursuant to s 295(a).
10 Apr 2008
Indemnity costs were not justified because the high threshold for indemnity was not met; the $14,000 retained in applicant's solicitor trust account did not qualify as a specific fund under r 48C(4)(c); however, because the applicant discontinued shortly before hearing and caused respondent expense, increased costs were warranted by way of uplift on scale costs — a 50% uplift on Category 2B scale ($3,840) resulting in an award of $5,760 plus disbursements.
16 Jul 2007
The payment was made by the company (through its solicitor) within the restricted period while the company was insolvent; it enabled the Trust to receive more than it would in liquidation and was objectively an extraordinary transaction not in the ordinary course of business given the clear intent to prefer the Trust; the Trust did not receive the payment in good faith; therefore the payment is voidable under s292 and the applicant's s294 application to prevent setting aside fails.