30 Nov 2020
The company was deadlocked and its affairs had caused unjust detriment to both 50% shareholders, s 174 was triggered, but liquidation would be unjust and confer a tactical advantage to one party; instead the court appointed an independent receiver to preserve the company asset and administration pending resolution of relationship property proceedings.
4 Jun 2009
Although directors were deadlocked, the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that its assets were at risk of serious jeopardy between the hearing and the return date; therefore the Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to appoint an interim receiver and refused interim relief, the balance of convenience favoring the status quo.
16 Jun 2006
The application for liquidation was refused at this hearing and the matter was given a final adjournment because the only outstanding dispute was a $10,000 legal cost claim and the company appeared solvent with a substantial property asset; liquidation would be a dramatic step at this stage. The court signalled it would seriously consider a liquidation order if the dispute remained unresolved on the adjourned date and indicated costs against the defendant and/or the other director on an indemnity or near‑indemnity basis would be open.
9 Dec 2005
Given the history and correspondence demonstrating a dispute and deadlock, the Court concluded it was not appropriate to grant the ex‑parte application and required the applicant to proceed on notice so the issues and competing interests could be properly considered.