Legal System Hepler Pty Ltd

Question: Discuss about the Legal System for Hepler Pty Ltd. Answer: Relevant fact of the case The case is of a loan case, a company took loan that was secured by the several block of lands possess by the company and for additional security two directors of the company provide security or guarantee the company. The company has been liquidate and in the liquidation period the company borrowed money from the plaintiff by signing of both the directors of the company but the disbursement authority had been signed by only one director. Beside this, some of the loan proceed had been transferred to the directors personal bank account. Here, in this case the company Hepler Pty Ltd took the loan from plaintiffs D.A. Caspersonnand two of its directors S.A. Hepburn and R.I. Bellamy was the defendant who gave guarantee to pay back the money but the company unable to pay the obligations under the loan. Major legal issue The major legal issue in this case is that the amoint that Hepler Pty Ltd had borrowed from the plaintiffs were not repaid by the date which was stated in the contract or agreement between them. As a result of this the plaintiffs have brought the case forward to get justice in the matter. Hepler Pty Ltd wanted to borrow a sum of money from the plaintiffs in order to get a land and the time period mentioned in the initial contract was that of two months only. After a point of time Hepler Pty Ltd was placed into liquidation and they no longer could make any payment to the plaintiffs. Now since this is a breach of the loan agreement made between the two, the case has a ground. This particular issue needs to be solved with the application and incorporation of relevant laws present in the Australian Legal System. Relevant law The case has been judged by the relevant law of Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) and Corporation Act 2001 (Cth). Both the law help in giving appropriate judgment for the case. As per the corporation Act 2001 (Cth) assumption in section 129(2)(b), the directors are liable to pay the obligations of the company completely or partially. Actual decision of the case The verdict of the court was in favor of the plaintiffs and against that of the defendant, where the defendants needed to pay an amount of $472,081.43 in total with the interest going up to $213.19 per day from 10th February 2010 till the date of the payment made. References Adams, Michael A and Marina Nehme,Business Organisations Law Guidebook(Oxford University Press, 2015) Australian Corporations Legislation(LexisNexis Butterworths, 2010) Newman, Stephen and Craig Semple,Corporations Law Intensive(Leo Cussen Institute, 2007) Real Property Amendment (Compensation) Act 2000(NSW Dept. of Lands, 2004) Young, Peter,Annotated Conveyancing And Real Property Legislation New South Wales(LexisNexis, 2009)