Albarran (Liquidator) v Reynolds, in the matter of Mercedes Group Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1361 | Case summary

Federal Court of Australia|2025-10-29|Before: Mr J, Jackson J

For the reasons just given, I was not persuaded that the liquidators had made out a serious case to be tried that they are entitled to a proprietary interest in or security interest over the Quindalup property. That was where, as explained, the balance of convenience gave no cause for any particular leniency as to the case that needed to be made out.
The application to extend the injunction was therefore dismissed. Costs followed the event.

I certify that the preceding fifty-two (52) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Jackson.

Court (Corporations) Rules 2000

Albarran v Reynolds, in the matter of Mercedes Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and Inka Builders Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] FCA 1129

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57

Twinside Pty Ltd v Venetian Nominees Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 110

Samsung Electronics Company Ltd v Apple Inc [2011] FCAFC 156; (2011) 217 FCR 238

Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] WASCA 76; (2017) 55 WAR 36

Ogilvie v Ferry [2010] NSWSC 379

Padovan v MGG Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] NSWSC 1080

ACN 077 991 890 Pty Limited v National Australia Bank Limited [2007] NSWSC 358

Miles v Official Receiver in Bankruptcy [1963] HCA 24; (1963) 109 CLR 501

Sterling & Freeman Advisory Pty Ltd v Callisi Pty Ltd [2024] VSCA 105; (2024) 73 VR 587

Sev.en Global Investments Pty Ltd v Global Loan Agency Services Australia Nominees Pty Limited [2024] WASC 424

Albarran (Liquidator) v Reynolds, in the matter of Mercedes Group Pty Ltd