A Queensland tourism icon caught up in a multimillion greenback authorized battle over a disputed debt – which might have resulted in it being wound up – has secured a significant court docket win.
Big Pineapple Corp (BPC) had requested the Supreme Court to put aside a statutory demand of greater than $5.5M after a dispute broke out with one among its three way partnership events.
BPC is the company trustee for the land on which the Big Pineapple – a 16m fibreglass pineapple – is constructed.
Founded in 1971, the Sunshine Coast construction is recognised as a nationwide tourism and meals icon showcasing Queensland’s agricultural produce.
The web site has additionally expanded to incorporate a excessive ropes and zipline course and a wildlife zoo and has been the host of a well-liked music pageant for greater than a decade.
A Supreme Court judgment reveals Peter Kendall and his firm CMC Property and Brad Rankin and his corporations Rankin Super and Rankin Investments had each entered right into a three way partnership with BPC.
Mr Kendall and Mr Rankin are each administrators of BPC.
Mr Rankin had demanded BPC pay greater than $5.5M price of loans to his corporations that he claimed have been made between 2011-15.
In May 2022, he introduced Mr Kendall a proposal to promote the land to property growth group Scott PDI for $35M.
This was refused by Mr Kendall, who mentioned the Big Pineapple was “not for sale”.
A couple of months later, BPC was served with a statutory demand from Mr Rankin’s firm demanding the funding be repaid by June 30, 2022.
BPC filed an utility to put aside the demand, arguing there was a “genuine dispute” over whether or not the debt was payable.
Supreme Court Justice Soraya Ryan finally put aside the statutory demand in a judgment printed this week.
“I find that there exists a plausible contention, which requires investigation, that the debt was not due and payable on June, 30, 2022,” Justice Ryan mentioned.
She mentioned Mr Rankin had agreed in cross-examination that he understood Rankin Super’s mortgage was not going to be repaid except the three way partnership in BPC ended, or he left.
“The existence of the genuine dispute provides a reason for denying effect to the statutory demand as creating a ground for the winding up of BPC,” she mentioned.
Justice Ryan additionally discovered the proof supported an inference that the statutory demand course of had been used for a function past its intent.
“Namely, (this was) as part of an attempt by the Rankin parties to avoid their forced withdrawal from the joint venture by putting pressure on BPC to sell the venture before the Kendall parties exercise their right to compulsorily buy them out,” she mentioned.
The judgment states BPC relied upon the three way partnership contributions to fulfill its monetary obligations, which would come with an obligation to repay a mortgage.
“Mr Rankin’s position, that the Rankin parties would not contribute funds to BPC to enable it to meet the statutory demand was, in my view, unfair and demonstrative of the complications of the conflict position he was in as a director of both Rankin Super and BPC,” Justice Ryan mentioned.
Source: www.perthnow.com.au
