AUSTRALIAN LAW TIMES Edited by JAMES C. ANDERSON, Esq., CHARLES F. MAXWELL, (G. PARTRIDGE & Co.), LAW PUBLISHERS, 458 CHANCERY LANE. ADELAIDE: E. S. WIGG & SON. LONDON: SWEET & MAXWELL LIMITED, 3 CHANCERY LANE, MDCCCXCV. Company Companies Act 1890 (No. 1074) 8. 145- Semble, per Hodges, J., that an application to the Court Compromise-Sanction of Court to Practice by the receiver of a firm for leave to commence an action, may be made exparte. Costs. Where a company is being wound up by or subject to the supervision of the Court, an application under 8. 145 of the Companies Act 1890, must be supported by evidence as to the amount (if any) of costs agreed to be paid by the contributory. Such costs should in the first instance be paid to the liquidator. : HODGES, J. Without reference to any particular application, I desire to state that, in all applications on behalf of liquidators of companies to sanction agreements of compromise between the liquidator and any contributory, I shall require an affidavit stating specifically the amount, if any, which the contributory has agreed to pay towards the costs of the application. If no sum has been agreed so to be paid I shall require that to be stated also. Where an agreement has been made as to payment of or towards the costs of the plication, I shall require the costs agreed upon to be paid in the first instance to the liquidator so as to make them moneys which come under his control. have several applications of this nature before me which I am holding back until I have been furnished with the above information, but I wish to be understood to make the above remarks generally, and without reference to any particular application. ap I Application on behalf of the receiver of the defendants Andrew Jack & Coy., for leave to commence and prosecute action against certain debtors of the defendant firm. The application was made exparte and was supported by affidavit. Mr. Isaacs in support. All the English writers on practice states that the application should be by summons. If this practice be correct it appears hard to see who ought to be served with the summons. HIS HONOR said: I can see the difficulty suggested as to determining what persons should be served with the summons, and I do not see the necessity for serving anyone. If a summons were held to be necessary the practice would be very similar to that provided by the rules in respect of the winding up of trading companies, where all applications in Chambers are directed to be made on summons, the usual effect of this being that liquidators have frequently to go to the expense of issuing a summons which is served on no one. shall make the order on this exparte application; and if anyone thinks he is entitled to object, of course, he may do so. Certify for counsel. Solicitors for the applicant, Blake & Riggall. I |