Roach & 1 Ors v Winnote P/L (in Liq) & 3 Ors [2001] NSWSC 822

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Roach & 1 Ors v Winnote P/L (in Liq) & 3 Ors [2001] NSWSC 822 revised - 19/09/2001 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3801/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 10/09/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 September 2001

Walter Edward Roach (First Plaintiff) Roach Industries Pty Ltd (ACN 001 359 913) (Second Plaintiff) PARTIES : Winnote Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (ACN 003 558 110) (First Defendant) Sydtech Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (ACN 002 896 460) (Second Defendant) Neil Cussen (Third Defendant) Kevin Shirlaw (Fourth Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Santow J

COUNSEL : J Sheahan, SC/ E T Finnane (Plaintiffs) J T Johnson (Defendants) SOLICITORS : McCabe Terrill Lawyers (Plaintiffs) Watson Mangioni (Defendants) CATCHWORDS : CORPORATIONS - Statutory derivative action - Application in a liquidation situation - Scope for the general law assisted by s477(6) and s511 Corporations Act. LEGISLATION CITED : Corporations Act Part 2F.1A (ss236 to 242); s237; s239 Aliprandi Pty Ltd v Griffith Vintners Pty Ltd (1991) 6 ACSR 250 Cadima Express Pty Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 33 ACSR 527Fargo Ltd v Godfroy [1986] 3 All ER 279 CASES CITED : Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 74 ALJR 339 Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189 Scarel Pty Ltd v City Loan & Credit Corp Pty Ltd (1988) 17 FCR 344; 79 ALR 483; 12 ACLR 730; 6 ACLC 219 Walker v Wimborne (1976) 3 ACLR 529 DECISION : Derivative action allowed.