Supreme Court of the ACT|2013-11-11

The application dated 19 September 2013 is dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding forty-seven (47) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of Master Mossop.

Counsel for the defendant: The defendant appeared in person

Procedures Rules 2006

Australia And New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Manny, Sims, Parbery, O�keeffe and Smith (No 3) [2013] ACTSC 223 (11 November 2013)

Carpenter v Pioneer Park Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 551; (2008) 71 NSWLR 577

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337

Farah Constructions v Say-Dee [2007] HCA 22; (2007) 230 CLR 89

Florgale Uniforms Pty Ltd v Orders [2004] VSC 65; (2004) 11 VR 54

GE Capital Australia v Davis [2002] NSWSC 1146; (2002) 180 FLR 250

Gahahan Pty Limited (In Liquidation) v Advance Bank of Australian Limited [2001] ACTSC 118

Jovanovic v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2004] SASC 61; (2004) 87 SASR 570

Permanent Custodians Limited v AGB Developments Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 540

Ultimate Property Group Pty Ltd v Lord [2004] NSWSC 114; (2004) 60 NSWLR 646

27. There is, however, a reference to ss 236 and 237 in that part of his application which identifies the statutory provisions upon which it is based. Even if I was to treat the application as an application for leave under those provisions they have no application where a company is in liquidation: see Chahwan v Euphoric Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 52; (2008) 65 ACSR 661. Therefore not only does Mr Manny not have leave to bring proceedings on the part of the companies, he could not obtain leave under ss 236 and 237.

Australia And New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Manny, Sims, Parbery, O�keeffe and Smith

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (21)

Australia And New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Manny, Sims, Parbery, O�keeffe and Smith (No 3) [2013] ACTSC 223 (11 November 2013)