29 Jun 2015
Because no evidence had been filed in opposition and the company and its shareholders were unable to make a substantial payment into court in respect of the debt relied on by the petitioner, the court, following established Companies Court practice, proceeded to grant the winding-up order.
6 Jan 2012
The court granted leave to appeal on the two questions as set out in the applicant's written application of 18 November 2011 and declined to reformulate the questions itself, observing that while reformulation might better reach the essence of the issues, the court would not undertake specific reformulation without doing so on an appropriate basis.
7 Jul 2006
The court held that section 196(2) and rule 146(2) give the court an unfettered discretion to determine the basis of remuneration of liquidators in summary cases; rule 146(2) does not impose the Official Receiver's percentage scale as the default and there is no requirement to show special circumstances to adopt a time cost basis; as a matter of practice the court will adopt the time cost basis for remuneration in summary (s227F) cases and it is appropriate to provide for that basis when making the summary procedure order.
7 Jul 2006
The court held that under s196(2) and rule146(2) the court's discretion is unfettered and the percentage basis applicable to the Official Receiver is not the mandatory default; as a matter of practice the time cost basis should be adopted for remuneration of liquidators in summary winding‑up cases and should be provided for when the summary procedure order is made.
7 Jul 2006
The court held that s196(2) and r146(2) confer an unfettered discretion on the court to determine the basis of remuneration in summary cases and that the percentage basis applicable to the Official Receiver is not the mandatory default; as a matter of practice and consistent with statutory purpose and administrative realities (including the Panel T Scheme), the time cost basis shall be adopted for liquidators in summary cases and should be provided for when a summary procedure order under s227F is made; no requirement to show special circumstances to adopt time cost.
17 Jun 1999
The court declined the petitioner's proposed costs orders, held that costs should follow the event for the interlocutory hearing held at the petitioner's insistence, made the order nisi absolute in favour of the Company and the Opposing Creditors against the Petitioner, and confirmed that only one set of costs is to be awarded to the Opposing Creditors.
19 Mar 1996
A judge will not direct preparation and provision of transcripts of evidence from an earlier trial for use at a retrial as a matter of course; such an order is justified only where justice and fairness require it and where alternatives are inadequate; however, where transcripts have already been prepared by court reporters, the Registrar must furnish them to the parties on payment of the fee per page as directed.