Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia Naidenov (as liquidator) v Anderson, in the matter of Peach & Co Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] FCA 1232 File number(s): NSD 389 of 2024
Judgment of: GOODMAN J
Date of judgment: 24 October 2024
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – application pursuant to s 1323(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for the appointment of a receiver to the property of the defendant, alternatively for freezing orders – where the grounds relied upon to establish that such an order is necessary or desirable have existed for a considerable time without an application having been brought – where an impending sale of real property is for the purpose of paying secured creditors – necessity or desirability of orders sought to protect the plaintiffs' interests not established – application dismissed
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 9, 588FDA, 588G, 596A, 1323 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), Division 7.4
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Burnard [2007] NSWSC 1217; (2007) 64 ACSR 360 Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Krecichwost [2007] NSWSC 948; (2007) 213 FLR 314 Cases cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Sigalla [2010] NSWSC 1423 Hogan (liquidator) v McCorkell, in the matter of McCorkell & Associates Pty Ltd (in liq) [2023] FCA 863 Naidenov as liquidator of Peach & Co Pty Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 161 445 790 v Anderson [2024] NSWDC 488
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
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