Dresna Pty Ltd, In the matter of Linknarf Management Services Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Linknarf Management Services Pty Ltd

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 3267 OF 2002

IN THE MATTER OF LINKNARF MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY LTD (IN LIQ) (ACN 000 052 077) and LINKNARF LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 000 929 902)

AND: LINKNARF MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 000 052 077)

LINKNARF LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 000 929 902)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal by the plaintiffs pursuant to s 1321 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) against a decision of the defendants' liquidator rejecting a formal proof of debt or claim. The plaintiffs seek an order reversing that decision, and an order requiring the liquidator to allow the proof of debt for such sum as may be awarded against the defendants to the first plaintiff in a proceeding commenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria (2090 of 2001). That proceeding was subsequently transferred to this Court (VID 909 of 2002), and will be referred to as "the principal proceeding". 2 The first to eighth plaintiffs are all companies associated with Mr Leo Blake, the ninth plaintiff. The tenth plaintiff is Mr Blake's wife. 3 This proceeding was also originally commenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria on 23 September 2002. Both this proceeding and the principal proceeding were transferred to this Court on 13 December 2002, and were to be dealt with by the same judge. Accordingly, both matters were docketed to me. 4 The principal proceeding has taken some years to resolve. Ultimately, it involved Dresna Pty Ltd, the first plaintiff in this proceeding, suing the defendants for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and misleading or deceptive conduct under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). All the plaintiffs in this proceeding were originally applicants in the principal proceeding as well. However, following an amendment to the statement of claim in the principal proceeding, all applicants, other than Dresna Pty Ltd, were removed. 5 I gave final judgment in the principal proceeding on 12 May 2006, dismissing the application: see Dresna Pty Ltd v Linknarf Management Services Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2006] FCA 540. This appeal has effectively been sitting in abeyance, awaiting the outcome of the principal proceeding, since being transferred to this Court. 6 Having regard to the findings I made in the principal proceeding, and the fact that the plaintiffs' claim in this appeal was predicated on the first plaintiff being awarded a sum of damages in the principal proceeding, the plaintiffs cannot succeed in this claim. 7 Accordingly, the liquidator's decision must be confirmed and the appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Weinberg.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs: Mr R.M. Garratt QC and Mr M.K. Moshinsky

Counsel for the Defendants: Mr M.J. Colbran QC and Mr G.J. Fitzgerald

Solicitor for the Defendants: Home Wilkinson Lowry