Monthly Archives: March 2017


Company reinstated so trustee in bankruptcy could be appointed its director and have access to rights in relation to bankrupt’s shareholdings

Weston (Trustee) v Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in the matter of Empire Property and Investment Group Pty Ltd (Deregistered) [2017] FCA 176

The Federal Court of Australia recently reinstated a company on application of the trustee in bankruptcy of the former sole director and shareholder.

The purpose of the reinstatement was to enable the trustee to gain access to shares the company held in another entity, which in turn gave rights to occupy or lease an apartment. The bankrupt had failed to disclose her position in the company and the rights in respect of the apartment in her Statement of Affairs.

The trustee in bankruptcy (Mr Weston) sought that the deregistered company, Empire Property and Investment Group Pty Ltd (Empire), be reinstated by ASIC. Mr Weston also sought that, upon reinstatement, he be registered as the sole shareholder, that Empire be wound up, and that he be appointed liquidator.

Mr Weston made an urgent application for relief pursuant to ss 601AH, 461(1)(a), 461(1)(k) and/or 462 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act).  […]

By |March 13th, 2017|Categories: Uncategorized|0 Comments

What does the recent update about representative proceedings mean for commercial class actions?

Uniform Civil Procedure (Representative Proceedings) Amendment Rule 2017

Commercial class actions now have more procedural clarity thanks to new amendments to the UCPR.

In line with recent amendments contained in the Limitations of Actions (Child Sexual Abuse) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2016, the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR) have also been amended. The amendments to the UCPR provide clarification for consent, opting out and application requirements for representative proceedings.


By |March 9th, 2017|Categories: Uncategorized|0 Comments

When is service on a PO Box sufficient?

Suncorp Metway Ltd v Siulangapo Inc [2017] QSC 16

The Queensland Supreme Court recently found that service of an originating application to a PO Box address was sufficient. 

Suncorp sought the removal of a caveat. The address for service nominated by the caveator (as required by s 121(2)(b) of the Land Titles Act) was a PO Box address.

Pursuant to s 131(1) of the Land Titles Act 1994 (Qld) (Act), a notice to a caveator is sufficiently served if sent to the address mentioned in s 121(2)(b) of Act. However, this did not mean that service of the Originating Application was effected as required by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).

Reference was made to Rule 107 of the UCPR and s 109X(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). However, […]

By |March 7th, 2017|Categories: Uncategorized|0 Comments
Load More Posts