By and -


  • This article discusses the continuing application of the District Court’s decision in Unilever Australia Limited v Rosella Foods Pty Limited [2012] NSWDC 221.
  • The case addressed the question of whether the District Court, not being a court contemplated by s 440D(1)(b) of the Corporations Act, is bound by the moratorium on claims against a company while in administration.
  • This question, it appears, has not previously arisen before the Court.
  • The Court held that a judgment, reserved before voluntary administration but then delivered during voluntary adminitration, is not a ‘step in the proceeding’ in contravention of the Corporations Act.

The delivery of a reserved judgment in the District Court, reserved before a party was placed into voluntary administration, but then delivered during the administration, is not a ‘step in the proceeding’ in contravention of section 440D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the District Court has held.

The continuing application of Unilever v Rosella

In Unilever Australia Limited v Rosella Foods Pty Limited [2012] NSWDC 221 (‘Unilever v Rosella’), his Honour Judge Taylor was required to consider the applicability of s 440D of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth) (‘the Act’), to the proposed delivery of a reserved judgment only days after the appointment of a voluntary administrator to the defendant in that proceeding.

The question in Unilever v Rosella arose in circumstances where the defendant, Rosella, had been placed into voluntary administration after a summary judgment hearing had taken place, but before the delivery of Judge Taylor’s judgment in the District Court.

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more