A Case Summary of Williams v Scholz [2008]
Case name & citation: Williams v Scholz & Anor [2008] QCA 94
- Delivered on: 18 April 2008
- Court: Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal)
- Judges: Keane and Muir JJA and Mackenzie AJA
- Area of law: Duties of directors; insolvent trading; management and administration of companies
Facts of the case (Williams v Scholz)
The case involves a liquidator trying to recover money from the directors of a company called Scholz Motor Group Pty Ltd. The liquidator claims the company incurred debts while it was insolvent and that the directors should have known this.
As per Section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), directors must ensure that their company can pay its debts when due. If the company is insolvent (unable to pay its debts) and the directors know or should know this, it’s illegal for them to let the company take on new debts. If directors break the law by allowing the company to take on debts while insolvent, they can be sued by the liquidator to recover the losses incurred by creditors (Section 588M).
The company was set up in April 2004 and struggled financially from the start. It accumulated significant losses, amounting to over $3 million by October 2005. Despite increasing its overdraft limit multiple times, the company couldn’t manage its financial problems and frequently bounced cheques. By September 2005, the bank terminated its relationship with the company due to its financial troubles.
Issue that arose
Were the directors responsible for the debts incurred due to the company’s insolvent trading?
Trial’s decision and Appeal court
The trial judge agreed with the liquidator and decided the directors should pay $3,101,145.78. This amount represented the debts incurred after the company was insolvent (i.e., from 1st July 2005).
The judge concluded that there were clear signs of insolvency that the directors should have noticed. This included frequent overdraft limit breaches and dishonoured cheques. The directors were informed of these issues through bank statements and communications, making it unreasonable for them to claim they were unaware of the company’s financial troubles.
On 4 October 2007, it was ordered that the directors pay to the respondent (the liquidator) $3,422,900.27, including interest of $321,754.49.
The appeal court confirmed that the trial judge’s decision was well-founded based on the evidence of insolvency. The directors should have wound up the company instead of allowing it to incur the debts, while it was insolvent.
List of references:
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CORPORATE LAW:
