FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v EFX Advisory Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1885 File number: NSD 1452 of 2019 Judge: JAGOT J Date of judgment: 12 November 2019 Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – application to terminate winding up of company – circumstances where the liquidator does not consent nor oppose the orders sought – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 483(1) – application allowed. Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 482(1) Cases cited: Judson, in the matter of Maneroo Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] FCA 783 Date of hearing: 12 November 2019 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 5 Counsel for the Plaintiff Mr D Olthof Solicitor for the Plaintiff Hunt & Hunt Counsel for the Applicant Mr M Klooster Solicitor for the Applicant HP Legal Pty Ltd Counsel for the Defendant Mr D Mitchell ORDERS NSD 1452 of 2019 BETWEEN: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Plaintiff TYSON CARTILLA-HAO Applicant AND: EFX ADVISORY PTY LTD (ACN 612 286 825) Defendant JUDGE: JAGOT J DATE OF ORDER: 12 NOVEMBER 2019 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. On condition that the Cheque is honoured upon presentation, pursuant to section 482(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the winding up of the Defendant be terminated from the date of this Order. 2. In the event that the Cheque is dishonoured, the Plaintiff have liberty to apply on 3 days' notice. 3. The Applicant pay the Plaintiff's costs of the Interlocutory Process filed on 11 November 2019 fixed in the amount of $2,000.00. 4. The Applicant notify ASIC of these Orders forthwith. 5. Leave is granted to ASIC to apply for the setting aside or variation of these Orders made within 14 days of its' notification. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT JAGOT J: 1 This is an application pursuant to s 482(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), that the orders made on 16 October 2019 winding up the defendant be terminated. 2 Consistent with the oral submissions put by the applicant and the reasoning of Justice Gleeson in Judson, in the matter of Maneroo Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] FCA 783, and in particular the relevant legal principles identified in [22], I accept that on the evidence that has been adduced, the following: (1) the application for the termination of the winding up has been brought promptly; (2) there has been or will be full payment of all creditors; and (3) in the affidavit evidence, there has been an adequate explanation provided as to why the winding up occurred, which was in short an oversight in the office of the applicant's accountant in respect of the location of the registered office for service of documents. 3 As a result, the documents relating to the winding up application are, and otherwise, were forwarded to a location which was no longer the registered office of the business. The evidence also establishes that procedures have been put in place to ensure that there is no recurrence. Finally, there is evidence of the solvency of the company showing that it has sufficient assets to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due. 4 In these circumstances, it is submitted for the applicant that the orders sought in Order 2 of the interlocutory process terminating the winding up should be made. 5 In my view, the defendant company should have the benefit of and an exercise of discretion in its favour pursuant to s 482(1) of the Act. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jagot. Associate: Dated: 12 November 2019