Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants    

Re Digital Dealership Pty Ltd.; Ex parteRe Digital Dealership Pty Ltd. - (15 May 2024)

A person applying for the winding up of a company has to lodge a notice with Australian Securities Investments Commission

Company

In present matter, on 7 May 2024, Digital Dealership Pty Ltd (Company) filed an application for orders that it be wound up on the grounds of insolvency (pursuant to Section 459A of the Corporations Act 2001, alternatively on just and equitable grounds (pursuant to Section 461(1)(k) of the Act), and that liquidators be appointed to the Company.

A company has standing to apply for its own winding up in insolvency pursuant to Section 459P(1)(a) of the Act, as well as on just and equitable grounds pursuant to Section 462(2)(a) of the Act.Section 465A of the Act requires a person applying for the winding up of a company to lodge a notice with Australian Securities Investments Commission (ASIC) that the application has been made, to serve a copy of this notice on the company, and cause a notice about the application to be published 'in the prescribed manner'. Pursuant to Rule 5.6(2) of the Supreme Court (Corporations) (WA) Rules 2004, the notice about the application is required to be published at least 3 days after the originating process is served on the company, and at least 7 days before the date fixed for the hearing of the application.

It would be just and equitable for the Company to be wound up. This is because there is evidence that, the board of the Company has been misled as to the true financial position of the Company and its subsidiary. It is in the interests of both the creditors and members of the Company for independent persons to be appointed to the Company to manage its business and affairs and to determine what steps should be taken.The Plaintiff has filed a notice of consent for Thomas Donald Birth and Jeremy Joseph Nipps to act as liquidators for the Company. In the circumstances of present case, present Court consider that an order should be made appointing Mr. Birth and Mr. Nipps as liquidators of the Company.

Tags : WINDING UP   LIQUIDATOR   APPOINTMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved