13 Jun 2023
Because no party could be said to have clearly succeeded or failed and the application formed part of the Court's supervision of the liquidation, costs are to lie where they fell and be borne by the party incurring them.
7 Sept 2022
The court approved the liquidators' remuneration because the fees reflected the fair value of services to creditors, substantial work had been performed, reasonable discounts and write‑offs were applied in light of limited realisations and no viable recovery avenues were identified, satisfying the test in Re Roselea Path and Madsen‑Ries and s 284(1)(e) Companies Act 1993.
9 Dec 2013
The Court granted a time‑limited order under s321(1)(e) preventing removal of Goose Bay Ranch Holdings Ltd from the Register for four months because plaintiffs demonstrated a sufficient basis to pursue a claim against the mortgagee; the Court refused to recall the liquidators' final report as unnecessary and because the liquidators were not served.
18 Mar 2008
The Court entered summary judgment for the undisputed portion of the debt ($1,100,700) because the partnership liability was not disputed and the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidential foundation for their alleged defences; tax/GST adjustment and the $10,000 reconciliation require fuller procedures (eg s284 or trial) and cannot defeat summary judgment, but execution was stayed to allow defendants to seek those remedies or agree indemnity for liquidators to pursue tax reassessment.