In the matter of A.C.E.S. Sogutlu Holdings Pty Ltd and Ceyser Pty Ltd

Case [2014] NSWSC 780


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of A.C.E.S. Sogutlu Holdings Pty Ltd and Ceyser Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 780
Hearing dates:2 June 2014
Decision date: 02 June 2014
Jurisdiction:Equity Division - Corporations List
Before: Hammerschlag J
Decision:

Winding up orders made and stayed on condition

Catchwords: CORPORATIONS - winding up - stay application, no issue of principle
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Commonwealth Bank of Australia - Plaintiff
A.C.E.S. Sogutlu Holdings Pty Limited - First Defendant
Ceyser Pty Limited - Second Defendant
Representation: Solicitors:
Gadens Lawyers - Plaintiff
File Number(s):2014/100716

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

  1. HIS HONOUR: These proceedings started this morning as a contested application by the plaintiff, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia ("the bank") for the winding up of two companies, A.C.E.S. Sogutlu Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 122 192 509 and Ceyser Pty Ltd ACN 082 916 078 ("the companies").

  1. Together with that application the defendants, represented by a director, Mr Charara, moved for an adjournment of the application on the footing that the judgment of this Court for $138,838.18 plus interest entered in favour of the bank by Young AJA on 15 August 2013 is under appeal and the appeal is scheduled to be heard on 4 August 2014.

  1. An application by the companies for a stay of the judgment was refused by McColl JA on 26 March 2014.

  1. The parties have reached a consensus which, in my opinion, appropriately balances their respective interests and which makes it unnecessary for me to rule on either application, suffice it to say that the bank's evidence complies with all applicable requirements to justify the making of winding up orders.

  1. The consensual position is that the defendants consent to being placed under winding up orders which are to be stayed until the determination of their appeal scheduled to be heard on 4 August 2014, provided that within 48 hours the defendants pay into Court the sum of $138,850.32.

  1. If the amount is not paid as aforesaid, the stay will immediately dissolve.

  1. The orders of the Court are:

(1) A.C.E.S Sogutlu Holdings Pty Limited ACN 122 192 509 is placed under a winding up order and, subject to a consent being provided within 48 hours by Riad Tayeh of De Vries Tayeh, Level 5, 32 Martin Place, Sydney 2000, Riad Tayeh of De Vries Tayeh, is appointed liquidator.

(2) Ceyser Pty Limited ACN 082 916 078 is placed under a winding up order and subject to a consent being provided within 48 hours, by Riad Tayeh of De Vries Tayeh, Level 5, 32 Martin Place, Sydney 2000, Riad Tayeh of De Vries Tayeh, is appointed liquidator.

(3) In each instance the winding up is stayed up to and including 4.00pm on 4 June 2014 provided there shall be paid into Court, on behalf of the defendants the sum of $138,850.32 pending further order of the Court. Should the amount not be so paid into court, the stay will forthwith dissolve.

(4) The parties have liberty to apply on 12 hours notice to be given in business hours.

(5) In the event that the stay is dissolved, the plaintiff's costs will be costs in the winding-up.

**********

Amendments

16 June 2014 - McColl JA


Amended paragraphs: Paragraph 3

Details
AGLC
In the matter of A.C.E.S. Sogutlu Holdings Pty Ltd and Ceyser Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 780
Case
[2014] NSWSC 780
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved two companies, A.C.E. Sogutlu Holdings Pty Ltd and Ceyser Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on the winding up of A.C.E. Sogutlu Holdings, with Ceyser Pty Ltd applying for a stay of the proceedings. The application was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the winding up of A.C.E. Sogutlu Holdings should be stayed. This involved assessing whether there were any grounds, such as a likely composition or scheme of arrangement, that could justify halting the winding-up process. The court also needed to consider whether the stay was necessary to prevent an unjust outcome or to allow for an alternative dispute resolution process.

The court found that there were no issues of principle that warranted a stay of the winding-up proceedings. It noted that the application for a stay was made late and without sufficient evidence of a likely alternative outcome that would be more beneficial than the winding up. The court held that the winding-up application should proceed as there were no substantial reasons to halt the process at that stage. The application for a stay was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the stay application. The winding-up proceedings against A.C.E. Sogutlu Holdings Pty Ltd were allowed to continue as planned.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.