Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Sentinel Orange Homemaker Pty Ltd v Bailey, in the matter of Davis Investment Group Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2022] FCA 1297 File number: NSD 954 of 2021
Judgment of: STEWART J
Date of judgment: 1 November 2022
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – whether liquidator of assetless company who successfully defends an appeal against the rejection of a proof of debt should as a rule be entitled to indemnity costs COSTS – indemnity costs – whether grounds made out
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 477, 545(1), 545(2), Sch 2 (Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations)) ss 45-1, 45-5 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 43(3)(g) Federal Court Rules 2011(Cth) rr 39.05(c), 40.01, 40.02(a)
Cases cited: In Re Beddoe [1893] 1 Ch 547 In Re Silver Valley Mines (1882) 21 Ch D 381 Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 116 Re Wilson Lovatt & Sons Ltd [1977] 1 All ER 274 Sentinel Orange Homemaker Pty Ltd v Bailey, in the matter of Davis Investment Group Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] FCA 85 Sentinel Orange Homemaker Pty Ltd v Bailey, in the matter of Davis Investment Group Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2022] FCA 1200 Silvia v Brodyn Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 55; 25 ACLC 385 Tanning Research Laboratories Inc v O'Brien [1990] HCA 8; 169 CLR 332
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
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