Lam Soon Australia Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) v Molit (No 55) Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 899

CATCHWORDS Corporations Law - interpretation of s 444D(1) - whether the phrase "claims arising on or before the day specified in the deed" comprehends future or contingent debts or claims - whether claims for future rent payable under a lease in existence on the day specified are claims "arising on or before" that day - whether deed of company arrangement should be terminated under s 445D - whether deed unfairly prejudicial or discriminatory - whether deed can be unfairly prejudicial to or unfairly discriminatory against a creditor who receives benefits of a value at least equal to those which would be received if the deed were not executed - whether an insolvency practitioner who has given a company, or its parent, advice is necessarily disqualified from acting as administrator under s 436A Corporations Law s 445D, s 447A, s 436A, s 443B(3), 436E, s 439A, s 588W, s 588M, s 445G, s 444A, s 444D, s 447A, s 553, s 435A, s 109H, s 444E, s 444F Brash Holdings Ltd v Katile Pty Ltd (1994) 13 ACSR 504 Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd (1993) 177 CLR 485 at 492 J & B Records Ltd v Brashs Pty Ltd (1995) 36 NSWLR 172 Hamilton v National Australia Bank Ltd (1996) 137 ALR 231 at 250) McLeay v IRC (1963) 9 AITR 265 Shepherd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1965) 113 CLR 385 Progressive Mailing House Pty Ltd v Tabali Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 17 Re New Oriental Bank Corporation (No. 2) [1895] 1 Ch 753 James Smith & Sons (Norwood) Ltd v Goodman [1936] 1 Ch 216 Hagenvale Pty Ltd v Depela Pty Ltd (1995) 17 ACSR 139 at 151, 152 Re Bartlett Researched Securities Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 707 at 709, 710 LAM SOON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED) v MOLIT (NO 55) PTY LTD No. SG 32 of 1996 CORAM: von Doussa, O'Loughlin and Lehane JJ PLACE: Adelaide DATE: 18 October 1996