Capers v PSR Refining Services PTY LTD [2025] NSWSC 22

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Capers v PSR Refining Services PTY LTD [2025] NSWSC 22 Hearing dates: 3 February 2025 Date of orders: 5 February 2025 Decision date: 05 February 2025 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: AsJ Harrison Decision: The defendant is to pay the plaintiff the sum of USD 640,964.00 Catchwords: CONTRACTS – Termination – Relief against forfeiture – Repayment of money – Debt enforcement – Loan – Oral agreement - Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Limitations Act 1969 (NSW) Cases Cited: Bechara trading as Bechara and Company v Bates [2016] NSWCA 294 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang [2002] CLR 491 HCA 10 Stellar Vision Operations Pty Ltd v Hills Health Solutions Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 102 Texts Cited: N/A Category: Principal judgment Parties: Joe David Capers (Plaintiff) PSR Refining Services PTY LTD (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: T Smartt (Plaintiff) No appearance.

Solicitors: Craddock Murray Neumann Lawyers (Plaintiff) Coleman Greig Lawyers (Defendant) File Number(s): 2023/0000603 Publication restriction: N/A.

JUDGMENT 1. This Judgment involves the enforcement of a debt in the sum of $640,964 USD. 2. The plaintiff is Joe David Capers. The defendant, PSR Refining Services PTY LTD ("PSR refining") and its Director Mr Martin Hewines were called three times outside the court. There was no appearance. The plaintiff was represented by T Smartt of counsel. On 8 August 2024 the solicitor acting for the defendant filed a notice of intention of ceasing to act. 3. At the outset of the proceedings, counsel for the plaintiff drew my attention to an email sent to the plaintiff's solicitor Mr Metlej dated 3 January 2025 at 5.17am 4. By way of the statement of claim filed on the plaintiff seeks judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of USD 640,964. 5. Mr Ed Hewines ("Mr Hewines") manager of the defendant attached a creditors voluntary liquidation appointment package and advised that "we have appointed Worrells on 6 January 2025" 6. On 3 February 2025 at approximately 9.15am the plaintiff's solicitor had a telephone conversation with Mr Christopher Darin of Worrell's where Mr Darin confirmed, 1. he was aware of an intention by Mr Hewines that he should be appointed liquidator, however he has not been appointed liquidator of the defendant as at today's date; 2. in particular, Mr Darin considered that the requirements for the calling and holding of a meeting at which a special resolution for winding up would be considered had not been satisfied. He said he believed that members had r:-iot been given 21 day notice of the intention, to call the meeting to consider the resolution, and no consent obtained for the time to call the meeting being shortened - Mr Darin had said that he had previously explained these requirements to Mr Hewines; 3. he would speak with Mr Hewines today to progress a voluntary winding up (but that such a winding up would only likely occur at a meeting held on the giving of 21 days notice to members) 1. Shortly stated the defendant has not gone into voluntary liquidation.