2 Nov 2023
Section 256(1)(a)(i) must be read as permitting inspection by a liquidation committee only where the request is made for purposes connected with the committee's statutory functions and powers; a request made for a collateral private purpose by a committee member may be refused by the liquidator even if inspection would not prejudice the liquidation.
29 Oct 2018
Application dismissed: applicant failed to establish 'good reason' under s256 for inspection; requests amounted to suspicion/fishing expedition; disclosure risked prejudice to the liquidation by undermining the liquidator's control over assessment of overlapping and potentially sensitive claims; re-advertisement did not evidence misconduct and liquidator entitled to manage the claims process.
10 Mar 2015
Applicant established tangible, non‑speculative concerns about possible reckless trading and the adequacy of the liquidators' inquiry into directors' beliefs and realizations; accordingly the Court granted inspection under s256(1)(a)(ii) but imposed conditions to protect commercial sensitivity, denied some redaction claims (cl 4.2) and required a procedural mechanism for contested redactions of financial performance documents; costs of the application were reserved to lie where they fall while Steggall must pay reasonable administrative costs for assembling documents.
23 Aug 2013
Appeal dismissed because appellants failed to demonstrate 'good reason' under s 256(1)(a)(ii); absent persuasive concrete grounds, mere suspicion, distrust of liquidators or a fishing expedition does not justify court-ordered inspection of company records; the High Court's application of the discretionary 'good reason' test was correct.
28 Aug 2012
No separate costs were awarded to Fletcher Distribution Limited because its interests overlapped with those of the respondent liquidators, its submissions largely addressed the same statutory interpretation issues, and cooperation could have incorporated any distinct arguments into the respondents' submissions; applicants were ordered to pay a contribution of $8,995 to the respondent liquidators.
25 Jun 2012
The Court dismissed the application because the respondents had deposed to a full and reasonable investigation showing no assets or voidable transactions; the statutory presumption against creditor access under s256(1)(a)(ii) requires a good reason to order inspection and the applicants did not establish any such reason or an arguable basis to reopen the liquidation.