Deloughery & Ors v Weston [2010] NSWCA 148

Deloughery & Ors v Weston [2010] NSWCA 148

Applicants were only entitled to be heard on the liquidator's application for approval of a litigation funding agreement if they had a relevant right, interest, or expectation likely to be affected by the court’s orders. In the absence of such, they had no right to be heard. Individual committee members without a committee decision did not have standing, and even as substantial creditors or applicants in removal proceedings, their interests were not likely to be adversely affected such as to attract natural justice protections. The judge had been entitled to entertain and decide the SPL’s ex parte application and make confidentiality orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Winding Up / Appeal From Ex Parte Orders; Application for Access to Confidential Documents
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
["liquidator's Powers" 'litigation Funding' 'confidentiality Orders' 'right to Be Heard' 'natural Justice']
['corporations' 'insolvency' 'equity'] ["liquidator's Powers" 'litigation Funding' 'confidentiality Orders' 'right to Be Heard' 'natural Justice']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Winding Up / Appeal From Ex Parte Orders; Application for Access to Confidential Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Do members of a committee of inspection or major creditors have a right to be heard on a liquidator’s application for court approval of a litigation funding agreement?' 'Are creditors or individual committee members entitled to access confidential documents filed or ordered in such proceedings?' 'Did special circumstances confer standing or a right to be heard on these applicants?']

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants were only entitled to be heard on the liquidator's application for approval of a litigation funding agreement if they had a relevant right, interest, or expectation likely to be affected by the court’s orders. In the absence of such, they had no right to be heard. Individual committee members without a committee decision did not have standing, and even as substantial creditors or applicants in removal proceedings, their interests were not likely to be adversely affected such as to attract natural justice protections. The judge had been entitled to entertain and decide the SPL’s ex parte application and make confidentiality orders.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed with costs.' 'The interlocutory application by the special purpose liquidator heard by Barrett J on 14 May 2010 is remitted to the Equity Division.']