This week's TGIF considers the decision in Pentridge Village Pty Ltd
(in liq) v Capital Finance Australia Ltd [2018] VSC 633,
where the Victorian Supreme Court dismissed a substitution
application brought by a sole director of a company who claimed
that the liquidator had assigned to him all of the company's
right, title and interest in certain property, including the causes
of action and claims that were already the subject of the
proceeding.
WHAT HAPPENED?
The decision concerned the long series of events related to the
financing for a property development projects in Melbourne's
inner-northern suburbs, on the site of the (now closed) maximum
security Pentridge Prison.
The plaintiff property development companies sought damages from
the financier for the projects, alleging that the financier had
engaged in unconscionable conduct and misleading or deceptive
conduct by representing that the financier would provide funding
sufficient to complete the projects,
