9 Sept 2022
The Court was satisfied on the evidence (reports, time records, explanations and nature of tasks) that the liquidators performed necessary work at appropriate seniority and that the proposed write‑offs were justified by insufficient realisations; therefore the net remuneration of $8,486.14 (excluding GST) and expenses of $851.59 are fair value and are approved.
1 Aug 2016
Because STH treated Stube as a de facto part of the group and conducted its affairs in a way that made Stube a puppet (total management involvement, financial intermingling, STH's representations to the lessor and withdrawal of support causing liquidation), it was just and equitable under s271(1)(a) to order STH to pay the full amount of Lewis's claim; absence of formal causation or detrimental reliance did not preclude relief under s271/272.
15 Sept 2015
Plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment for unpaid rent and interest under the guarantees but were not entitled on summary judgment to indemnity for losses arising from the liquidator's disclaimer; contractual lease clauses permitting recovery of solicitor/client costs supported an award of indemnity costs, but because plaintiffs only succeeded in part the Court awarded indemnity costs equal to 50% of the amount claimed on a summary judgment basis.
5 Dec 2014
The recall application was dismissed because the respondents failed to establish the very special reason required to recall a final judgment; the contention that damages should run only from disclaimer was not squarely raised below and involved factual and legal issues inappropriate for a recall application, and the Court accepted that trespass to common property occurred when access cards were deactivated (31 August 2007) supporting the High Court's damages start date of 1 September 2007.
4 Oct 2013
The Court held leave to adduce limited further evidence was granted but, applying a robust interlocutory standard, concluded the appellants' prospects of obtaining the substantive relief were weak: no effective s 269(5) application was made or signalled and vesting was unlikely, ss 258–260 did not assist because there had been no cancellation and the appellants had not established reliable subleases; the appellants' lease proposal was deficient (no arrears, reduced rent, conditions shifting maintenance to landlord, uncertain ability to meet damages); balance of convenience and overall justice…
25 Jan 2008
The Court ordered termination because the statutory discretionary test under s250 was satisfied: creditors have been or will be paid (including provision for the secured creditor via refinancing), the liquidator reports no material activity and costs are to be confirmed or secured, the sole shareholder consents, and there is no public interest reason preventing termination; accordingly it is just and equitable to terminate, subject to the liquidator filing a memorandum confirming costs paid or secured.