Case: Richmond Sales Pty Ltd (In Liq) v McDermott [2006] FCA 52
Outcome: referred to
The applicants in this matter, Robert McDermott, Maxwell Latimer and Ann Langdon, were defendants in an earlier proceeding before me. That proceeding began as an ex-parte application, filed by Paul Burness as liquidator of Richmond Sales Pty Ltd ("Richmond Sales"), for a warrant under s 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The procedural history of that matter is outlined in reasons for judgment delivered on 8 February 2006: see Richmond Sales Pty Ltd (In Liq) v McDermott [2006] FCA 52 at [2] - [19] . 2 It is unnecessary to review all of the procedural history of the earlier proceeding involving these parties. For the present purposes, the following facts are relevant: &#8226; Merkel J issued a warrant on 4 December 2003 and it was served the next day. Pursuant to the warrant, Burness seized seven vehicles &#8226; On 24 March 2004, Burness filed an interlocutory application asking that he be directed to sell the seven seized vehicles. &#8226; By 15 December 2004, only three vehicles remained in Burness's possession and the subject of dispute. McDermott, Latimer and Langdon, as defendants, opposed the sale of these vehicles. &#8226; Burness's application to dispose of the vehicles was part heard on 12 and 13 July 2005. &#8226; On 29 August 2005, McDermott, Latimer and Langdon, together with fellow defendants Michael Giuffre, John McDonald and Mary-Ann Martinek, filed an application seeking to set aside the warrant issued on 4 December 2003. &#8226; On 10 October 2005, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a settlement concerning Burness's application of 24 March 2004 to dispose of the seized vehicles. The parties requested that the Court make consent orders consistent with the terms of this settlement. Accordingly, amongst other things on that day the Court ordered: "1. The motor vehicle identified as a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost chassis No. 2316 which is in the possession of the Plaintiff be delivered to the Defendant nominated by Walter Percival Edwards at an address in Melbourne specified by him forthwith upon nomination of that Defendant. 2. In the event that the Defendants pay the sum of $33,000.00 to the Plaintiff on or before 31 January 2006 the Plaintiff deliver the motor vehicles identified as a Rolls Royce Phantom II Sedan chassis No. 39GY and a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow II Saloon chassis No. SRH0040192 to the Defendant or Defendants nominated by Walter Percival Edwards at an address specified by him within 48 hours of receipt of the said sum. 2A. In the event that the Defendants fail to pay the sum of $33,000.00 to the Plaintiff on or before 31 January 2006 the motor vehicles referred to in paragraph 2 hereof be the absolute property of Richmond Sales Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and the liquidator of that company be at liberty to sell those vehicles and retain the proceeds of sale as absolute property of the company in liquidation. 2B. Reserve liberty to the parties to apply." &#8226; On 10 October 2005, the Court also made orders concerning the timing of submissions regarding the defendants' application of 29 August 2005 to set aside the warrant. &#8226; On 8 February 2006, the Court delivered reasons for judgment dismissing the defendants' application to set aside the warrant. 3 On 23 February 2006, the applicants filed this application, under s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), seeking that paragraphs 2 and 2A of the orders of 10 October 2005 be varied. The applicants ask the Court to extend the time for payment of the sum of $33,000.