NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Hebbel Constructions Pty Limited v Bitar Pty Limited and Anor [2018] NSWSC 758 Hearing dates: 10 May 2018 Decision date: 25 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Black J Decision: No order for discharge of the Court-appointed receiver is made. No basis for an interim distribution by the Court-appointed receiver to Bitar Pty Limited is established. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application under r 26.6 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) for the discharge of a Court-appointed receiver – whether it is just and convenient for the receiver to remain in office. Legislation Cited: - Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 477 - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 136 - Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) Cases Cited: - ACN 151 726 224 Pty Ltd (in liq) formerly Ridley Capital Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1801 - Domino Hire Pty Ltd v Pioneer Park Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 496 - MLW Investments Pty Ltd v Tacsum Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1256 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Hebbel Constructions Pty Limited (Plaintiff) Bitar Pty Limited (First Defendant) Hebbel Constructions Pty Ltd & Bitar Pty Ltd (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: P Wiggins (Solicitor – Plaintiff) P E King (First Defendant) S Golledge (Court Receiver)
Solicitors: Paramonte Legal (Plaintiff) Priest Legal (First Defendant) Yates Beaggi (Court Receiver) File Number(s): 2014/269117 (012)
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