26 Oct 2023
The plaintiff's summary judgment application was dismissed but the case was not exceptional or an abuse of process because the defendant raised arguable equitable defences (including undue influence) and factual issues that could not be resolved on summary judgment; consequently costs were reserved rather than awarded to the defendant.
6 May 2022
Leave was refused because the issues were fact‑dependent, the Court of Appeal reasonably evaluated the liquidator's conduct and reliance on advice, there was no arguable miscarriage of justice or novel point of general commercial significance requiring Supreme Court determination, and the case was therefore an unsuitable vehicle for further appeal.
1 Apr 2019
The interests of Mr Rankin and the company align for the first two limbs of the claim but diverge in respect of the third limb (the s174/derivative style claim); accordingly High Court Rule r1.20(2) applies and leave is required for joint representation on matters where interests diverge; the practical and proportionate remedy is to sever the first two limbs from the third under r10.4 so that the same solicitors and counsel may act for the defendants in the first two limbs while the third limb proceeds separately, subject to further court orders after submissions on costs and representation.
21 Jun 2011
None of the matters advanced by the plaintiff constituted the required significant change in material circumstances or otherwise justified revisiting the prior security order; however the character and scope of the proceedings had expanded sufficiently to justify a modest uplift in security of $7,000; defendants must provide further and better discovery for specified categories and plaintiff must particularise and justify claimed privilege by filing a memorandum within 15 working days.