Federal Court of Australia
JUDGMENT No. KES Bod KE28,
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 3185 of 1995 GENERAL DIVISION )
Between: SANIRISE PTY LIMITED First Applicant
CHRISTINE KELLY & FRANK NEJAD Second applicants
FEDERAL COURT And: COURT & CO LIMITED
OF AUSTRALIA Respondent 21 JAN 2003 * LIBRARY © ~ anna" REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EINFELD J SYDNEY 28 FEBRUARY 1996
By motion filed on 30 June 1995 the respondent seeks an order that the amended application filed in Court on 29 June, supported by statement of claim filed on the same date, should be summarily dismissed. The grounds are set out in written submissions which have been supplied by the solicitor for the respondent and there is no particular reason why I should repeat them now, except to say that I agree with the thrust of the
submissions.
The application sought to be struck out seeks two main orders.
One is that the respondent be removed as the administrator of
the applicant company, the second is that upon certain oy
undertakings by the applicant, the respondent should be ordered
to release to the applicant all the plant, equipment, stock and
wt -2- other assets of the applicant company in the respondent's
control or custody.
There is no utility in such orders being made. Indeed, there is no possibility that they could be made, first, because | as a
oe,
matter of fact the respondent is no longer the gdvinistrator sof
¢ hood be ea
- frst the applicant company and, second, because the goods referred te
have already been disposed of by sale with the 'respondent' Having
4 a TAREE
obtained the proceeds of sale and applied them to ene paymcht yt % ai creditors. Accordingly, the applications for those "Spasee' vould
have to fail on the facts.
The other two things sought in the application are an unspecified claim for damages and an unspecified claim for -interest. The applicant indicated through counsel today that it was willing to consent to an order that the proceedings be permanently stayed, but for my part, I can see no difference in Substance between a permanent stay and a dismissal, and of the two, in the facts of this case as outlined in the written
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate