The applicant, Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd (“Permanent Trustee”), seeks an order pursuant to Corporation law – section 440C - Owner or lessor cannot recover property used by company (AUSTLII, 2017), that it have leave to take possession of the premises locate at Ground Floor, 452-470 Flinders Street, Melbourne. A declaration alternative that it is entitled to recover possession of the premises pursuant to section 441F - Where recovery of property begins before administration (AUSTLII, 2017). The third named respondent on these premises called Java 452 Pty Ltd (“the Company”), directs café business under name “Java Express”, the company has the right on the premises as assignee of lease which was granted in 1995 by the then owner. Permanent
…show more content…
Permanent Trustee $74,275
5. Freehill Hollingdale & Page $3,100
On 9 June 1999, creditors received a notice of adjourned second meeting to be reconvened. On 17 June 1999, it was recommended from the administrator about a deed of company arrangement pending the decision on the sale of the business and assignment of the lease that it was summarized recommended clauses of the proposed deed of company arrangement. On 17 June 1999, the process of seeking leave to take a possession of the premises pursuant to section 440C was commenced by the Permanent Trustee. There was an adjourned creditors' meeting to be held at 2.00 p.m. on that day before the receiving of urgent application in the morning and the counsel of Permanent Trustee said that if the proposal were made, the Permanent Trustee would be at risk under section 444F(4) – the court may order the owner or lessor of property that is used or occupied by, or is in the possession of, the company not to take possession of the property or otherwise recover it (AUSTLII, 2017). Because of his client was apprehensive that a scheme of arrangement might be proposed at the meeting. The application has done by affidavit of Mr. Stout sworn on 24 June 1999, the matter was adjourned to 25 June to enable them to place material before the court, if the administrators would not at the meeting seek a resolution in favor of a deed of company arrangement under section 439C(a). after that the creditors’ meeting was adjourned to 1 …show more content…
5969 of 1999, I extended the limit prescribed by section 439B (2) – a meeting convened under section 439A may be adjourned from time to time, but the period of adjournment, or total of the periods of adjournment, must not exceed 45 business days (Australia, 2011). for the adjournment of the meeting of creditors to 17 July 1999. The Company was at the beginning of the administration insolvent, the choices were available in this situation which were either the case of the creditors would receive nothing, or a deed of company arrangement under which the Company would sell the business; or a simple sale of the business as a going concern. The second or third option offered the prospect of some return, principally for the secured creditor and Adchore has agreed that some part of the proceeds of sale would be available to unsecured creditors if the business is sold and the Company remains in occupation of the premises with the administrators paying current rental at the rate that was specified in the lease. Permanent Trustee advised the administrators that neither of the proposed tenants was acceptable to it on 15 June 1999 and the Counsel for Permanent Trustee submitted that the lease has been terminated because of the tenant has no present right to
Permanent Trustee $74,275
5. Freehill Hollingdale & Page $3,100
On 9 June 1999, creditors received a notice of adjourned second meeting to be reconvened. On 17 June 1999, it was recommended from the administrator about a deed of company arrangement pending the decision on the sale of the business and assignment of the lease that it was summarized recommended clauses of the proposed deed of company arrangement. On 17 June 1999, the process of seeking leave to take a possession of the premises pursuant to section 440C was commenced by the Permanent Trustee. There was an adjourned creditors' meeting to be held at 2.00 p.m. on that day before the receiving of urgent application in the morning and the counsel of Permanent Trustee said that if the proposal were made, the Permanent Trustee would be at risk under section 444F(4) – the court may order the owner or lessor of property that is used or occupied by, or is in the possession of, the company not to take possession of the property or otherwise recover it (AUSTLII, 2017). Because of his client was apprehensive that a scheme of arrangement might be proposed at the meeting. The application has done by affidavit of Mr. Stout sworn on 24 June 1999, the matter was adjourned to 25 June to enable them to place material before the court, if the administrators would not at the meeting seek a resolution in favor of a deed of company arrangement under section 439C(a). after that the creditors’ meeting was adjourned to 1 …show more content…
5969 of 1999, I extended the limit prescribed by section 439B (2) – a meeting convened under section 439A may be adjourned from time to time, but the period of adjournment, or total of the periods of adjournment, must not exceed 45 business days (Australia, 2011). for the adjournment of the meeting of creditors to 17 July 1999. The Company was at the beginning of the administration insolvent, the choices were available in this situation which were either the case of the creditors would receive nothing, or a deed of company arrangement under which the Company would sell the business; or a simple sale of the business as a going concern. The second or third option offered the prospect of some return, principally for the secured creditor and Adchore has agreed that some part of the proceeds of sale would be available to unsecured creditors if the business is sold and the Company remains in occupation of the premises with the administrators paying current rental at the rate that was specified in the lease. Permanent Trustee advised the administrators that neither of the proposed tenants was acceptable to it on 15 June 1999 and the Counsel for Permanent Trustee submitted that the lease has been terminated because of the tenant has no present right to