Morton v Young [2003] NSWSC 989

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Morton v Young [2003] NSWSC 989 HEARING DATE(S) : 24 October 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 24 October 2003 JURISDICTION: Equity JUDGMENT OF : Campbell J DECISION : Proceedings transferred

CATCHWORDS : PROCEDURE - miscellaneous procedural matters - transfer of proceedings to Family Court - CORPORATIONS - winding up - challenge to validity of appointment of liquidator and to rejection of proof of debt - liquidator purportedly appointed pursuant to order of Family Court and with Registrar of Family Court carrying out some steps in appointment - winding up of companies part of larger property dispute in Family Court - transfer of proceedings to Family Court PARTIES : Michael Joseph Morton - Plaintiff David Gregory Young - Defendant FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3795/03 COUNSEL : Unrepresented - Plaintiff D R Pritchard - Defendant SOLICITORS : In person - Plaintiff Gordon & Johnstone - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION EQUITY LIST

CAMPBELL J

24 OCTOBER 2003

3795/03 MICHAEL JOSEPH MORTON v DAVID GREGORY YOUNG JUDGMENT- Ex Tempore 1 HIS HONOUR: There are two applications before the Court today. They relate to the affairs of the two companies The Automated Office Pty Limited and The Automated Office (New South Wales) Pty Limited. They are both companies in which Mr Michael Morton and his wife were the shareholders. 2 One application has been made by Mr Morton which seeks to challenge the validity of the appointment of the defendant to these proceedings, Mr David Young, as liquidator of those companies. That application also, in the alternative, seeks an order extending the time to appeal from a rejection of proof of debt which Mr Young has made for the proof lodged by Mr Morton, and an order reversing the liquidator's decision to reject that proof of debt. The other application is an application by the liquidator which seeks to have the proceedings transferred to the Family Court. It is logical to deal with the liquidator's application first. 3 The application arises from some proceedings in the Family Court between Mr and Mrs Morton. On 22 October 2001 Faulks J made an order requiring the husband and wife to take such steps as were necessary to cause the companies to be wound up. That order was part of a set of orders which Faulks J made to determine an application for property settlement, which resulted, broadly, in 80% of available assets going to the wife. 4 On 20 December 2001 Faulks J made a further order, in which he directed that the orders he had made on 22 October 2001 not be stayed, "Except to the extent that the proceeds of the sale of various pieces of property referred to and the liquidation of the companies referred to will be retained in the trust account of the wife's solicitor pending the disposition of the husband's appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia or further order of this Court." 5 That partial stay was stated by his Honour to be conditional upon the husband's co-operation in the implementation of the order for the liquidation of the companies and the sale of the property referred to. There were some other conditions as well.