Stratos Legal Logo

Federal Court Case; Tedesco v LVT Capital Pty Ltd

642464-court
Learn the outcome of an application to the Federal Court of Australia for orders fixing a later time for registration of security interests

The plaintiffs are the parents of the first defendant’s director, and the defendants, who are three companies in voluntary administration.

The plaintiffs sought orders under s 588FM of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to fix a later time for the registration of certain alleged security interests granted to them by the defendants under three loan agreements and three general security agreements.

The application was opposed in part by the administrator of the first defendant and in full by an unsecured creditor who intervened in the proceedings.

The Court granted the orders sought by the plaintiffs: The Court was satisfied that the plaintiffs had security interests under the general security agreements, which were executed and registered within time as against the defendants, but not as against the trusts of which two of the defendants were trustees.

The Court also found that it was reasonably arguable that the plaintiffs had security interests under the loan agreements, which were executed and registered out of time. The Court held that the plaintiffs had established the grounds for fixing a later time under s 588FM(2), namely that the failure to register earlier was due to inadvertence and was not prejudicial to the creditors or shareholders, and that it was just and equitable to grant relief.

The Court made the orders subject to the right of other interested parties to seek to set aside or vary them.

The Court considered the applicable principles and authorities under the Corporations Act and the Personal Property Securities Act: The Court explained the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act and the Personal Property Securities Act that governed the registration and enforcement of security interests in personal property.

The Court also referred to the previous cases that dealt with the interpretation and application of s 588FM, which confers a discretion on the Court to extend the time for registration of a security interest in certain circumstances. The Court noted that the authorities indicated that it was not necessary to determine on a final basis whether the interests the subject of the application were PPSA security interests, but whether there was a reasonably arguable case that they were.

More like this

Commercial Property Conveyancing

What fees can you expect to pay for Commercial Property Conveyancing when buying and selling Commercial Property? Learn this and more from our specialist conveyancing team

Residential Property Conveyancing

We answer your important questions about Residential Property Conveyancing. Questions like why do you need a conveyancer when buying a house? and what does a property conveyancer do?

Residential Unit Conveyancing

How much does conveyancing cost? Answers to frequently asked questions: Is home insurance before settlement necessary?

SHARE THIS POST

Categories

Recent Posts

Small Business Restructure – Key Points

Any Small Business struggling with debt of less than $1 million can now apply for the Government’s Small Business Restructure programme. How does it work and how do you qualify? Read on.

Commercial Property Conveyancing

What fees can you expect to pay for Commercial Property Conveyancing when buying and selling Commercial Property? Learn this and more from our specialist conveyancing team

Loan Agreements and Mortgages

Our Expert Legal Team advise on Loans and Mortgages when Buying & Selling Property in our Guides, News and Expert Tips

Residential Property Conveyancing

We answer your important questions about Residential Property Conveyancing. Questions like why do you need a conveyancer when buying a house? and what does a property conveyancer do?

Residential Unit Conveyancing

How much does conveyancing cost? Answers to frequently asked questions: Is home insurance before settlement necessary?