In the matter of Harrisons Pharmacy Pty Limited:
Will Courts Readily Grant Extension to the Convening Period?
Introduction
In Harrisons Case, the Federal Court of Australia considered the administrators’ application to extend the convening period. This case comment will discuss the various principles that contribute to the Court’s discretion in granting extensions, and how the application of those principles in other cases yield different results.
Background
On 25 March 2013, administrators were appointed. The secured creditor appointed receivers to control over substantially all of the companies’ assets. Harrisons Pharmacy comprises a group of companies that operate small to large pharmacies, "bulk billing", medical and pharmaceutical supply contracts and a wellness spa. The administrator sought the Court’s permission to extend the convening period by six months. Although the administrators brought the proceedings, the receivers supported it. The central issue in Harrisons Case is whether and for what period the Court should exercise its discretion to extend the convening period. The Court was satisfied and granted extension to the convening period.
Balancing Act
Harrisons case demonstrates that the Courts will strike a balance between the expectation that the administration will be relatively quick and the requirement that undue speed should not prejudice creditors’ return. The administrators adduced evidence of a complex corporate
The Plaintiff’s estate was sequestrated in Federal Magistrates Court on May 12 2009, for failure to pay Council court costs [10]. An application by the Plaintiff for an extension in time to appeal this sequestration was
Judge Tracey had regard to Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority, in relation to issues with the construction of statutes. The case proposed that in order to define the purpose of a legislation, the extent and aim of the whole statute and the language of the relevant provision should be taken into consideration. Similarly, in “The Engineers Case” the court stated that the language of a statute should be examined in its ordinary and natural sense in order to understand the intent of Parliament behind making it.
The plaintiff, First Colonial Bank for Savings entered into an interpleader action in the District court to determine who was entitled to the surplus proceeds from the foreclosure sale. The foreclosed property belonged to the defendants, Robert H. and Sherrell L. Bergeron, and the codefendants, Ford Motor Credit Company, the junior mortgagee of the foreclosed property as a result of corporate restructuring Ford Consumer Finance Company was substituted as the defendant for Ford Motor Credit Company. Both the Bergerons and Ford filed motions for summary judgement as they both felt entitled to the surplus. The district court ruled in favor of Ford Motor Credit Company and denied the Bergerons motion. The Bergerons appealed the decision of the District Court because they argued that they filed for and were discharged from bankruptcy prior to the foreclosure sale, therefore they believed that the security interest granted to Ford prior to their petition does not carry over to the surplus funds received after filing the petition.
On a consolidated appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in part and remanded. (721 F2d 550) The court held that Loudermill and Donnelly had been deprived of due process and that their compelling private interest in retaining employment, combined with the value of presenting evidence prior to dismissal, outweighed the added administrative burden of a pretermination hearing. The court affirmed the district court’s
The formation of these courts proved to be extremely influential to the colony of New South Wales and the development of Australian law as judicial decisions from cases such as Kable v Captain Sinclair (1788) proved crucial for the maturing of the Australian legal system through the legislative establishment of the British law concept of the rule of law. As well as this the institution of the court system also created Australia’s own doctrine of precedence.
It is recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of reform, if the
The Australian Constitution is a rich amalgam of various classical political principles. The concepts of the Rule of Law and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers evident in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws are both salient examples of political theses that are central to Australian Constitutional Law. The structure of the Constitution itself and decisions of the High Court of Australia unequivocally validate the entrenchment of the doctrine separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution . In particular, the High Court has applied this with relative rigour with respect to the separation of judicial power. The separation of the judicial power is fundamentally critical to upholding the rule of law. The High Court in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs noted that “the separation of the judicial function…advances two constitutional objectives: the guarantee of liberty and, to that end, the independence of Chapter III judges” . Kitto J in R v Davidson also identified that the judiciary should be subject to no other authority but the law itself . This is a critical aspect ensuring the concept of legal equality is upheld. Therefore, its role clearly extends to providing checks and balances on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive arms of government . This ensures the liberty of the law and limits the abuse of the judicial system. Judicial Power is defined as “the power which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide between its subjects
Since the early 1990s, Australian judicial system has experienced a great flux revolving around the notion of good faith in the performance the enforcement of contracts. The leading case Renard Construction (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (Renard) along with Preistly JA’s judgment commenced the controversial introduction of universal obligation of good faith in all contracts. Such introduction was also confronted by the opposing force of the more conservative judgments, such as those of Meagher JA in Renard and Gummow J in Service Station Association v Berg Bennett & Associates Pty Ltd . In order to correctly assess the extent to which the High Court of Australia should recognize that in all contracts, parties
The case of Mabo v Others v State of Queensland (No.2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 (www.austlii, 1993), rewrote common law as the court ruled in a six to one majority, that the people of
he most recent case that we've worked at for this Internet giant's company has been about the mergers & acquisition. That department, managed by our senior lawyer and managing partner Gerald Harrison worked on this specific case for over a year. But eventually, the legal facts and arguments that they have successfully gathered have proven our client's claims. Result: in favor of our client.
The division of powers between the Commonwealth and the states is a fundamental feature of Australia’s federal system. The Commonwealth Constitution of Australia (CCA) 1901 divides Legislative power into three categories that are listed in section 51: exclusive powers of the Commonwealth Parliament, concurrent powers shared by the Commonwealth and states, and residual powers that remained with the states. While residual powers are not defined in the Constitution, section 107 authorises the states to legislate on laws that are not exclusive to the Commonwealth. Yet, section 109 gives Commonwealth authority to override any state law that is inconsistent with Commonwealth law. The primary function of the High Court of Australia (HCA), established in 1903, is to interpret the Constitution and apply its meaning to settle challenges brought for it.
To critically evaluate the impact of the cases R v Bugmy and R v Munda on the existing case law.
In the matter of Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] NSWSC 881 (30 June 2017) (‘SPG and SET’) concerns the events involving plaintiffs Michael Hogan (H) and Christian Sprowles (S). Salim Mehajer (M) is the sole shareholder of both Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (SPG) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (SET). M appointed Kenneth Lee (L)
The adversarial nature of Australia’s court system deal with facts and legal implications. Here lies the establishment of such principles that make the law
‘It is well-known that the Separation of Powers doctrine is sine qua non for maintaining the rule of law however, an absolute separation of power does not exist in the Australian legal system.’