Hume v Carey

[2023] WASCA 138

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Corporations
2. › Winding up
3. › Termination of winding up
4. › Discretion under s 482 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
5. › Conditions on termination order
6. › Whether termination may be made conditional on payment of liquidators' fees by applicant
7. › Whether finding that winding up should not have been made precluded imposing condition
8. › Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 461(1)(k), 462(4), 482, 556(1)(a)
1. Corporations
2. › Winding up
3. › Liquidators' remuneration
4. › Entitlement to remuneration for work performed under court-ordered appointment
5. › Priority of liquidators' costs under s 556(1)(a)
6. › Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (Cth), s 60-5
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Appeal from discretionary decision
4. › Whether appellant demonstrated error in exercise of discretion

Quick Take

An application to terminate a winding up under s 482 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is prospective in effect. Even where the court finds the winding up order should never have been made, the court must deal with the company's position at the time of the termination application, including the liquidators' entitlement to remuneration. It is an appropriate exercise of discretion to make termination conditional on the applicant paying the liquidators' fees where the company has no assets.

Case Details

Citation[2023] WASCA 138

CourtWASCA

JurisdictionWestern Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on3

2022Hume v CareyWASC 256
and 2 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in