Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Securities and Investments Commission; In the matter of Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2006] FCA 1827
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (acn 110 693 251) WAD 152 OF 2006
SIOPIS J
17 NOVEMBER 2006
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAD 152 OF 2006
IN THE MATTER OF LANEPOINT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (acn 110 693 251) BETWEEN: Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Applicant
AND: Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (acn 110 693 251)
Respondent
JUDGE: SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER: 17 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant's notice of motion dated 17 November 2006 is dismissed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAD 152 OF 2006
IN THE MATTER OF LANEPOINT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (acn 110 693 251) BETWEEN: Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Applicant
AND: Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (acn 110 693 251)
Respondent
JUDGE: SIOPIS J
DATE: 17 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for a stay of the orders made by French J on 10 November 2006, pending an appeal against that decision. The application is made by John Patrick Cronin and Shaun Robert Fraser, the receivers and managers of Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd. I will refer to them henceforth as the applicants. They are also the receivers and managers of Bowesco Pty Ltd. The effective respondent to this application is Bowesco Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) acting by its sole director. I will henceforth refer to it as the respondent. 2 The orders which French J made were as follows: '1. The receivers and managers of the respondent do make provision out of its assets for the payment to Bowesco Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) of: (a) legal expenses reasonably incurred by it in opposing the winding up application brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in WAD 177 of 2006 to a maximum figure of $50,000, the quantum of such payment to be taxed by a Registrar of the Court if not agreed; (b) legal expenses reasonably incurred by Bowesco Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed), in connection with its application, in these proceedings, for the provision of such funds, to a maximum of $7,500 to be taxed by a Registrar of the Court if not agreed. 2. Upon the filing and service by Bowesco Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) of an application seeking an order pursuant to s 1321 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) appealing against the refusal by the receivers and managers of the respondent to make provision for Bowesco's legal expenses in connection with proceedings relating to an option assigned to Bowesco by Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd, the receivers and managers of the respondent make provision for the payment of Bowesco's reasonable legal expenses in connection with the prosecution of an application for leave to appeal and any consequent appeal from the decision of this Court in Australian Securities & Investments Commision, In the Matter of Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Carey (No 9) [2006] FCA 1425 to a maximum of $50,000, the sum to be paid to be taxed by a Registrar of the Court if not agreed. 3. The application filed pursuant to the preceding order shall be allocated to a separate court file and a copy of this order and the reasons for judgment placed on that file. 4. In complying with the preceding orders the receivers and managers of the respondent may make interim payments out of the funds provided from time to time. 5. The costs of the application are otherwise reserved.' 3 This application has been brought on an urgent basis because I also have before me today an application by the respondent, seeking orders that the applicants make a payment in respect of certain nominated items of the respondent's legal costs in relation to its forthcoming application for leave to appeal, and any consequent appeal referred to in O 2 of the orders of French J above. The respondent's application for leave to appeal is listed for hearing before the Full Court in Perth on Thursday, 23 November 2006. 4 Senior counsel for the applicants has advised me that the applicants have not made the payment for legal costs requested by the respondent because, firstly, they are not obliged to do so as French J did not require any payment to be made until after the conclusion of taxation, and, secondly, because they had in mind to appeal French J's decision in any event.
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