Ansett Australia Ground Staff Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Ansett Australia Ltd & Ors

(2003) 176 FLR 393; [2003] VSCA 117

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Declaratory relief
3. › Discretion to grant declarations
4. › Hypothetical and advisory declarations
5. › Whether declarations inappropriate where based on statutory provision not applicable to current circumstances
6. › Whether declarations inappropriate where merely ancillary to proceedings in another court
7. › Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 444A, 556
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Declaratory relief
3. › Limits on declaratory jurisdiction
4. › Advisory opinions distinguished from declaratory judgments
5. › Requirement for concrete and established situation
6. › Requirement that declaration settle dispute finally
1. Corporations
2. › Insolvency
3. › Deed of company arrangement
4. › Priority of debts
5. › Application of s 556 priorities
6. › Whether s 556 applies where deed provides otherwise
7. › Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 444A(5), 556
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Fragmentation of proceedings
3. › Proceedings in multiple courts
4. › Costs consequences of unnecessary fragmentation
5. › Comity between courts of plenary jurisdiction

Quick Take

Declarations as to priority under s.556 of the Corporations Act 2001 are hypothetical and advisory where the company is subject to a deed of company arrangement that provides otherwise under s.444A(5). Where the real dispute about the deed's validity is being litigated in another court, it is inappropriate for a court to determine priority questions that would amount to no more than an advisory opinion for the assistance of that other court. Practitioners who unnecessarily fragment proceedings between courts bear the costs consequences, even where the opposing party co-operated in the course taken at first instance.