In the matter of Coral Resorts Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2012] NSWSC 560
The offers of informal access to documents and discussion did not make the summonses or production orders oppressive, because the liquidator was entitled to use compulsory powers for a proper purpose. However, several production categories addressed to Waldorf and Mr Rubenstein were oppressive in their breadth, time period, or potential inclusion of privileged material and were therefore amended rather than set aside. The production orders addressed to Mr Bluth and Ms Peterson were oppressive on the limited evidence because the relevant documents appeared to be in Waldorf's custody and control and no contrary suggestion was advanced. The examination summonses were not set aside because...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 May 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Applications / Application for Summonses for Examination and Orders for Production to Be Set Aside
- Outcome
- Orders for production addressed to Waldorf Apartment Hotels The Entrance Pty Ltd and Mr Avi Rubenstein were amended and adjourned; orders for production addressed to Mr Stephen Bluth and Ms Nannette Peterson were set aside; examination summonses were not set aside; each party was ordered to pay their own costs of...
- Legal Topics
- ['examination Summonses' 'orders for Production' 'oppression' 'liquidator Examinations' 'legal Professional Privilege']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications / Application for Summonses for Examination and Orders for Production to Be Set Aside
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether examination summonses issued under s 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) should be set aside on grounds of oppression or under r 11.5 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 (NSW) or r 49.19 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether orders for production made under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and UCPR r 34.1 should be set aside or modified to avoid oppression.' 'Whether the offers of informal access to documents and discussion with the liquidator warranted setting aside the examination summonses or orders for production.' 'Whether orders for production addressed to individual officers or employees of Waldorf should be maintained.' 'Whether document requests extending to privileged documents or periods outside the likely limitation period were oppressive.']
Ratio Decidendi
The offers of informal access to documents and discussion did not make the summonses or production orders oppressive, because the liquidator was entitled to use compulsory powers for a proper purpose. However, several production categories addressed to Waldorf and Mr Rubenstein were oppressive in their breadth, time period, or potential inclusion of privileged material and were therefore amended rather than set aside. The production orders addressed to Mr Bluth and Ms Peterson were oppressive on the limited evidence because the relevant documents appeared to be in Waldorf's custody and control and no contrary suggestion was advanced. The examination summonses were not set aside because...
Court Disposition
Orders for production addressed to Waldorf Apartment Hotels The Entrance Pty Ltd and Mr Avi Rubenstein were amended and adjourned; orders for production addressed to Mr Stephen Bluth and Ms Nannette Peterson were set aside; examination summonses were not set aside; each party was ordered to pay their own costs of...
Orders
- ['The orders for production addressed to Waldorf Apartment Hotels The Entrance Pty Ltd and Mr Avi Rubenstein be amended by replacing the phrase, "1 July 2003", in line 2 of paragraph 3, with the phrase, "1 July 2005".' 'The orders for production addressed to Waldorf Apartment Hotels The Entrance Pty Ltd and Mr Avi...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment