Loading...
Queensland Judgments

beta

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Wilson v Badja Pty Ltd

 

[2002] QSC 449

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

MUIR J

No 10390 of 2002

ROBERT JAMES WILSON

Applicant

and

 

BADJA PTY LTD (ACN 010 007 342)

Respondent

BRISBANE

DATE 03/12/2002

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: The application is under section 459P of the Corporations Act 2001 for the winding up of Badja Proprietary Limited on the grounds of insolvency. Mr Conimos appears for the applicant and I gave leave to Mr Bright, the sole director of Badja, to appear on its behalf.

In order to establish insolvency the applicant relies on non-compliance with a statutory demand for $20,091, being the amount of a judgment obtained on 26 September 2002 by the applicant against the respondent after a trial in the Magistrates Court.

There has been no appeal from that decision. The respondent has not attempted to establish solvency. Indeed the only material filed by it which is relevant to that question suggests that the respondent is insolvent.

As the applicant relies on a failure to comply with the statutory demand the respondent may not, without leave of the Court, oppose the application on a ground that the respondent could have relied on but did not rely on in order to attempt to set aside the statutory demand. Under s 465C of the Act a person may not, without leave of the Court, oppose a winding-up application unless that person has filed and served on the applicant notice of the grounds on which that person opposes the application.

The case which Mr Bright sought to make out was confused; it involved an attack on the Commonwealth Bank, as well as allegations of violence and intimidation against the applicant. The point appeared to be that the applicant's conduct as a head contractor brought about the failure of a property development undertaken by the respondent and that such failure has caused the respondents financial difficulties.

It would appear that matters of this nature were ventilated in the Magistrates Court without success and as I mentioned, no appeal has been instituted from the judgment. Nor has the applicant otherwise commenced proceedings to vindicate his claims.

It is deposed to by Mr Bright that in respect of the matters in question he has worked with four barristers and ten solicitors at a cost of a quarter of a million dollars. He mentions misconduct by a barrister acting for him whom, it is said, has been dealt with for misconduct and I gather is no longer in practice.

The distinct impression I have is that the respondent has become so emotionally entangled in his financial misfortunes that he has lost all sense of objectivity and clarity of thought. A consequence of this state of affairs is that it is impossible to extract from his affidavit and his submissions any matters which could, on the balance of probabilities, support a decision on my part to give leave under sections 465C or 459S.

I mention that the respondent has devoted a great amount of time and energy to the preparation of numerous brochures which, in a loose and diffuse way, deal with the problems that he conceives confront him. Those brochures reveal a person who is disturbed as a result of his difficulties and who has lost the power to properly address the issues which need to be addressed in order to provide any grounds of defence to claims such as the one the applicant has brought. It is unfortunate for the respondent that the time and energy devoted to his publications could not have been properly channelled into dealing with the issues in question with some clarity, relevancy and precision.

HIS HONOUR: The applicant appears to have complied with the provisions of the Act in relation to the application and there is nothing put before me which would suggest any lack of non-compliance. That was not an issue which the respondent addressed.

HIS HONOUR: For the above reasons I order in terms of the draft initialled by me.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Robert James Wilson v Badja Pty Ltd

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Wilson v Badja Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2002] QSC 449

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Muir J

  • Date:

    03 Dec 2002

Litigation History

No Litigation History

Appeal Status

No Status