Timothy Oliver Bayley v National Australia Bank Limited

(1995) 4 Tas R 226; [1995] TASSC 13

Supreme Court of Tasmania

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Corporations
2. › Winding up
3. › Distribution of funds
4. › Void dispositions under s 468
5. › Whether funds recovered as void dispositions subject to floating charge
6. › Corporations Law, s 468(1)
1. Corporations
2. › Winding up
3. › Distribution of funds
4. › Voidable preferences under s 565(1)
5. › Whether funds recovered as voidable preferences subject to floating charge
6. › Whether such funds form part of property subject to charge at crystallisation
7. › Corporations Law, s 565(1)
1. Corporations
2. › Winding up
3. › Floating charges
4. › Crystallisation
5. › Property subject to charge at date of crystallisation

Quick Take

Funds recovered by a liquidator as void dispositions under s 468(1) of the Corporations Law remain subject to a pre-existing floating charge because the dispositions are void ab initio and the property never ceased to be the company's property. Funds recovered as voidable preferences under s 565(1) are not subject to a floating charge because they were not property of the company at the time the charge crystallised, and are distributable to general creditors subject to statutory priorities.