6 May 2019
The appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of delay: the plaintiff's application for leave to issue subpoenas was made at a stage (the morning of the first of seven trial days) that was too late and would prejudice parties and the court's preparation; therefore leave was refused without the court addressing the merits or relevance of the evidence sought.
24 May 2012
The court concluded the application had been properly treated as an inter partes summons with abridged time rather than a true ex parte application; the first order was overly wide and should be discharged in part, but limited interim restraint orders on specific named assets and company interests were justified to protect assets already subject to the January 2011 consent order and because of real risk factors (including Cambodian proceedings); the matter should be transferred to the High Court for full argument and costs reserved.
7 Nov 2006
Where no winding-up order was made and management has been re-vested in the directors, the companies (and other interested parties) who would bear payment of provisional liquidators' fees are entitled to be heard inter partes on taxation; the Procedural Guide does not oust the court's power to direct participation; interim payments may be ordered but the court will exercise discretion to reduce potential exposure (BF reduced from 70% to 50%); an order making provisional liquidators personally liable for costs will be set aside absent blameworthy conduct, and costs should be paid from company…
21 Feb 1997
The judge did not err in exercising his discretion: the hearing before Sears J was inter partes (the Director was heard), the leave point raised an arguable issue under s13D(2) that warranted further consideration, and the interlocutory stay was properly granted pending substantive determination; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
29 Jun 1994
The Court allowed the appeal because the naming of parties in the originating summons was a procedural/formal error that converted an intended ex parte application into an apparent inter partes form; there was no prejudice to any party, the judge would likely have exercised his discretion to permit amendment, and therefore the order of the judge was set aside, leave was granted to amend by deleting the party names, and a vesting order was made vesting the property in the personal representatives of the 1st Plaintiff and in the 2nd Plaintiff.