By Robert Kaye SC and Elan Sasson -
Snapshot
- 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.
