Clipsal

Last updated
Clipsal logo Clipsal Logo.svg
Clipsal logo

Clipsal is an Australian brand of electrical accessories. Their primary factory, once located at Bowden, moved to Gepps Cross, South Australia. [1] [2] Smaller factories in South Australia at Nuriootpa, Strathalbyn, Wingfield, Bayswater and in Victoria have closed and production has moved to Gepps Cross and to offshore locations. From 2000 to 2017, Clipsal was the naming rights sponsor for the Adelaide 500 Supercars race.

Contents

Since 2004 Clipsal Australia has been a subsidiary of Schneider Electric.

History

The former Clipsal factory in Bowden in the foreground Bowden clipsal.JPG
The former Clipsal factory in Bowden in the foreground

Clipsal was established by A. E. Gerard in Adelaide, Australia in 1920. Clipsal began by selling a range of adjustable sheet metal fittings which joined the various imported conduits of differing diameters found in Australia at the time. These products helped give the company its name, the phrase "clips all" being abridged to Clipsal. Alfred's son Geoff took over the company and spearheaded several manufacturing breakthroughs, including the invention of the first all-Australian switch in 1930. The company also performed early R&D on thermoplastics in the 1950s. [3]

Clipsal Integrated Systems, a division of Clipsal, was responsible for the creation of the C-Bus product range and accompanying protocol used in home automation.

Clipsal entered into a collaboration agreement with "The Smart Company" in 1995, and later entered into a Heads of Agreement in 1996. These agreements led to the development of the Clipsal Home Minder, which was sold until 2004.

In 2004, Clipsal Australia became majority-owned by Schneider Electric.

Litigation

From 2004 to 2011, Clipsal Integrated Systems,Clipsal Technologies Australia and Clipsal Australia were in litigation [4] with The Smart Company Pty Ltd regarding the Clipsal Home Minder and other Smart products. [5] [6] [7] [8]

The litigation was for apparent unpaid royalties to The Smart Company pursuant to the Heads of Agreement.

The Smart Company went into liquidation on 28 May 2010. Liquidators of The Smart Company went to the Supreme Court to gain control of the Clipsal case. [9] Prior to liquidation, director Dorothea Tomazos transferred the benefit of the case to herself for $1. [10] In August 2010, liquidators gained control of the Clipsal case to continue the action against Clipsal (and effectively Schneider Electric) for up to 4 billion Australian dollars. [9] [11] Enterprise Global Resources, (controlled by Dorothea Tomazos) intervened as the shareholder of The Smart Company to take control of the Federal Court action, allegedly thereby delaying the case. In February 2011, Enterprise Global Resources was refused permission to maintain the proceedings. [12] [13]

The case was dismissed on 29 April 2011, due to The Smart Company failing to comply with the orders from November 2009 to prepare for the 12-week trial. Although the trial was scheduled to start on 31 May 2010, liquidators were unable to progress during late 2010 and early 2011 due to lacking access to documents possessed by The Smart Company relating to the action. [14]

The liquidators filed a Notice of Appeal against the dismissal on 20 May 2011. [15] [16] In June 2011, the Yamaha Pitman founders attempted to resurrect the case against Clipsal Australia, filing the $3 million Deed Of Company Arrangement. The liquidators were in talks with a litigation funder, a third party, about the purchase of the Clipsal case. [17] The liquidators discontinued the Appeal on 8 July 2011 and were ordered to pay the costs. [15]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liquidation</span> Winding-up of a company

Liquidation is the process in accounting by which a company is brought to an end in Canada, United Kingdom, United States, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, and many other countries. The assets and property of the company are redistributed. Liquidation is also sometimes referred to as winding-up or dissolution, although dissolution technically refers to the last stage of liquidation. The process of liquidation also arises when customs, an authority or agency in a country responsible for collecting and safeguarding customs duties, determines the final computation or ascertainment of the duties or drawback accruing on an entry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fixture (property law)</span> Legal concept; physical property which is permanently attached to real property

A fixture, as a legal concept, means any physical property that is permanently attached (fixed) to real property. Property not affixed to real property is considered chattel property. Fixtures are treated as a part of real property, particularly in the case of a security interest. A classic example of a fixture is a building, which, in the absence of language to the contrary in a contract of sale, is considered part of the land itself and not a separate piece of property. Generally speaking, the test for deciding whether an article is a fixture or a chattel turns on the purpose of attachment. If the purpose was to enhance the land, the article is likely a fixture; if the article was affixed to enhance the use of the chattel itself, the article is likely a chattel.

<i>Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia</i> Australian labour law case

Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia, was a decision of the High Court which culminated the legal aspects of the 1998 Australian waterfront dispute, in which a major stevedoring operation, the Patrick group of companies, sought to replace its largely unionised workforce with a non-union workforce.

Robert Geoffrey Gerard AO is a businessman, was Chairman of the Gerard Family's company Gerard Industries Pty Ltd, a former member of the Reserve Bank of Australia, and ran for the leadership of the Liberal party in 1987. He was born and grew up in Adelaide, and attended Prince Alfred College.

Wrongful trading is a type of civil wrong found in UK insolvency law, under Section 214 Insolvency Act 1986. It was introduced to enable contributions to be obtained for the benefit of creditors from those responsible for mismanagement of the insolvent company. Under Australian insolvency law the equivalent concept is called "insolvent trading".

<i>Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy</i> 1990s controversy involving indigenous land rights

The Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy was a 1990s Australian legal and political controversy that involved the clash of local Aboriginal Australian sacred culture and property rights. A proposed bridge to Hindmarsh Island, near Goolwa, South Australia attracted opposition from many local residents, environmental groups and indigenous leaders. In 1994, a group of Ngarrindjeri women elders claimed the site was sacred to them for reasons that could not be revealed. The case attracted much controversy because the issue intersected with broader concerns about Indigenous rights, specifically Aboriginal land rights, in the Australian community at the time, and coincided with the Mabo and Wik High Court cases regarding Native title in Australia.

In law, a liquidator is the officer appointed when a company goes into winding-up or liquidation who has responsibility for collecting in all of the assets under such circumstances of the company and settling all claims against the company before putting the company into dissolution. Liquidator is a person officially appointed to 'liquidate' a company or firm. Their duty is to ascertain and settle the liabilities of a company or a firm. If there are any surplus, then those are distributed to the contributories.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ticketek</span>

Ticketek is an Australian event ticketing company. Founded in 1979, the company is owned by TEG Pty Ltd with its headquarters in Sydney and operates ticketing operations for entertainment and sporting events in Australia and New Zealand. There are companies using the name Ticketek in other countries however these are not a part of the Ticketek Australia/NZ operations but are a part of Ticketek Pty Ltd/Softix Pty Ltd.

<i>Telstra Corporation Ltd v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd</i>

Telstra Corporation Limited v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd is a 2001 decision of the Federal Court of Australia related to the originality required to attract copyright protection. Heard before Justice Finkelstein in June 2000, the case concerned the release of a product called "Phonedisc" created by the Respondents, Desktop Marketing Systems.

Environmental Performance Vehicles (EPV), previously DesignLine Corporation, is a manufacturer of coach, electric and range-extended electric (hybrid) buses. It was founded in Ashburton, New Zealand in 1985. Initially it was a manufacturer of tour coaches. In the 1990s it diversified into conventional transit buses and then added hybrid city buses in the late 1990s. It was acquired by American interests in 2006, and DesignLine Corporation's headquarters was relocated to Charlotte, North Carolina. Following a bankruptcy in 2013, the assets of DesignLine were sold and the company was renamed.

Firepower International was a fraudulent company that advertised as a Hong Kong-based company owned and operated by Global Fuel Technologies Ltd, specializing in technology purporting to reduce the fuel consumption and environmental impact of petrol-operated vehicles. There were other offices in Sydney, China, Rhodes, Athens and Papua New Guinea, according to the now-defunct official company website. However, "in reality it was a handful of people in an industrial estate in Perth", who were conducting a complex of fraudulent operations. The original entity—Firepower Operations Pty Ltd—was a A$1 company, first registered in December 2004, owned by Firepower Holdings Group Ltd, a company with an address in the British Virgin Islands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adelaide Steamship Company</span> Australian shipping company

The Adelaide Steamship Company was an Australian shipping company and later a diversified industrial and logistics conglomerate. It was formed by a group of South Australian businessmen in 1875. Their aim was to control the transport of goods between Adelaide and Melbourne and profit from the need for an efficient and comfortable passenger service. For its first 100 years, the company's main activities were conventional shipping operations on the Australian coast, primary products, consumer cargoes and extensive passenger services.

<i>Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd</i> 2007 High Court of Australia decision

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd, (Baxter) was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 29 August 2007 that Baxter Healthcare Proprietary Limited, a tenderer for various government contracts, was bound by the Trade Practices Act 1974 in its trade and commerce in tendering for government contracts. More generally, the case concerned the principles of derivative governmental immunity: whether the immunity of a government from a statute extends to third parties that conduct business with the government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Videlli</span>

Videlli Limited was an Australian company that developed automated fare collection systems for transit systems. Founded in 1984 as ERG, it was listed on the Australian Securities Exchange in 1985. Due to the large level of losses run up, ERG sold all the operating assets to Vix Technology in 2008, before ERG changed its name to Videlli and was delisted. Its head office was in Melbourne, Victoria.

<i>Re Oasis Merchandising Services Ltd</i>

Re Oasis Merchandising Services Ltd [1998] Ch 170 is a UK insolvency law and company law case, concerning wrongful trading.

Austin Australia was a Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, based 'design and construct' building organisation, specialising in complex buildings. It was originally formed in 1961 as a wholly owned subsidiary of The Austin Company, Cleveland, Ohio, initially under the name of Austin Anderson Pty Ltd, it changed its name to Austin Australia in 1982. With headquarters in Sydney and branches in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and South-East Asia, The Austin Company retained ownership of Austin Australia until 1997, when it was acquired by private Australian ownership. However, it retained an affiliation status with The Austin Company in the USA

Australian insolvency law regulates the position of companies which are in financial distress and are unable to pay or provide for all of their debts or other obligations, and matters ancillary to and arising from financial distress. The law in this area is principally governed by the Corporations Act 2001. Under Australian law, the term insolvency is usually used with reference to companies, and bankruptcy is used in relation to individuals. Insolvency law in Australia tries to seek an equitable balance between the competing interests of debtors, creditors and the wider community when debtors are unable to meet their financial obligations. The aim of the legislative provisions is to provide:

<i>Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead was the last of a series of cases in which members of a cartel, described as the "Coal Vend" were prosecuted under the Australian Industries Preservation Act. The majority of the High Court held that the investigation power was spent once a prosecution had commenced and that under the Act, a corporation could not be required to answer questions. While the decision was based on the wording of the specific legislation, its ongoing significance is its foundation for the requirement that the government act as a model litigant.

Natalie Charlesworth is an Australian judge, sitting on the Federal Court of Australia.

References

  1. "Innovative Electrical Products & Solutions | Clipsal by Schneider Electric - Clipsal by Schneider Electric".
  2. "Clipsal HO moving to Gepps Cross". ecdonline.com.au.
  3. From the Company's website at http://www.clipsal.com.au/consumer/about_us/history
  4. Smart Company Pty Ltd v Clipsal Integrated Systems Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 428 (29 March 2006), Federal Court (Australia).
  5. "Gerard family link to technology theft case" (PDF). The Australian. 4 September 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 August 2011. Retrieved 6 May 2011.
  6. "Clipsal Stole C-Bus Technology Court Case". Smart House. 5 September 2006. Archived from the original on 16 June 2007. Retrieved 6 May 2011.
  7. "EXCLUSIVE: Telstra Dragged Into Clipsal C-Bus Theft Case". Smart House. 25 September 2008. Archived from the original on 12 October 2010. Retrieved 6 May 2011.
  8. "John Howard's Mate Central To C-Bus Technology Theft Claim". Smart House. 28 September 2008. Archived from the original on 9 March 2012. Retrieved 6 May 2011.
  9. 1 2 Strazdins & Cooper (as liquidators of the Smart Company P/L (in liq) v Tomaszou & Enterprise Global Resources P/L [2010] SASC 262 (27 August 2010), Supreme Court (SA,Australia).
  10. "Surprise snag in $4bn Clipsal claim". The Advertiser. 17 August 2010.
  11. "Ruling on who can fight for royalties". The Advertiser. 31 August 2010.
  12. Smart Company Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 35 (2 February 2011), Federal Court (Australia).
  13. "Clipsal claimant loses $4bn bid". The Advertiser. 14 February 2011.
  14. The Smart Company v Clipsal [2011] FCA 419 (29 April 2011), Federal Court (Australia).
  15. 1 2 The Smart Company (In Liquidation) v Clipsal [2011] FCA 821 (20 July 2011), Federal Court (Australia).
  16. "Liquidators to appeal Clipsal case" (PDF). The Advertiser. 24 May 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 August 2011. Retrieved 25 May 2011.
  17. Emmerson, Russell (21 June 2011). "Last-minute bid to revive case against Clipsal". Adelaide Now.