FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

Chacmol Holdings Pty Limited v Handberg (in his capacity as Administrator of Australian Risk Analysis Pty Limited) [2005] FCAFC 40


CORRIGENDUM


CHACMOL HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 605 892) AND MATTHEW LEE JOHNSTON v GEOFFREY NIELS HANDBERG (IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF AUSTRALIAN RISK ANALYSIS PTY LIMITED) AND AUSTRALIAN RISK ANALYSIS PTY LIMITED (CONTROLLER AND ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED) (ACN 052 231 937)

 

V 736 OF 2004

 

 

 

TAMBERLIN, NORTH AND DOWSETT JJ

MELBOURNE

16 MARCH 2005 (CORRIGENDUM DATED 22 APRIL 2005)



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 736 OF 2004

 

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

BETWEEN:

CHACMOL HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED

(ACN 008 605 892)

FIRST APPELLANT

 

MATTHEW LEE JOHNSTON

SECOND APPELLANT

 

AND:

GEOFFREY NIELS HANDBERG

(in his capacity as ADMINISTRATOR OF AUSTRALIAN RISK ANALYSIS PTY LIMITED)

FIRST RESPONDENT

 

AUSTRALIAN RISK ANALYSIS PTY LIMITED

(CONTROLLER AND ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED)

(ACN 052 231 937)

SECOND RESPONDENT

 

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN, NORTH AND DOWSETT JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

16 MARCH 2005 (CORRIGENDUM DATED 22 APRIL 2005)

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

 

 

CORRIGENDUM

 

Amendment to the Reasons for Judgment of Tamberlin, North and Dowsett JJ delivered on 16 March 2005.

 

In paragraph 53, the answers to question 5 are amended to read as follows:

“5.        (a)Did the first respondent appoint the second respondent receiver of the property of the second applicant?

            (No)

 

            “(b) Did the second respondent accept appointment as receiver of the   property of the second applicant?”

            (No)

           

            “(c)If yes to (a) or (b), did the second respondent take possession or assume control of the property of the second applicant as receiver and, if so, on what date?”

            (Not necessary to answer)

            “(d)      Is the appointment of the second respondent as receiver of the property of the second applicant:

                        a.         valid; or

                        b.         of no effect?”

                        (Of no effect)

 

 

I certify that this is a true copy of the Corrigendum

to the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable

Justices Tamberlin, North and Dowsett.

 

 

Associate:

 

Date:    22 April 2005