24 Aug 2020
The liquidator was unsuccessful overall: the inherent jurisdiction declaration was upheld and the service directions were rescinded as having arisen from a misconceived process; accordingly costs follow the event and a 2B award plus verified disbursements and a memorandum fee were ordered against the liquidator.
23 Jul 2020
Tempest acted unreasonably by making and persisting with unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty and by seeking wholly unmeritorious and severe relief (including indefinite prohibition from acting as liquidator); the conduct warranted an award of indemnity costs, fixed at 80% of the claimed sum, resulting in an award of $37,646.08 in favour of Mr Davies.
24 Apr 2020
Tempest was treated as having standing but failed to establish the necessary threshold for leave under s 284 because there was no evidence of bad faith, fraud or material procedural irregularity such that the Court should intervene; given the company's hopeless insolvency and lack of assets and the supervisory nature of ss 284 and 286, granting leave and the substantive relief sought would be an unjustified use of resources.
19 Mar 2020
The 'Without Prejudice' email was admissible because no dispute or settlement negotiation existed at the time; Tempest failed to establish an objectively reasonable suspicion of the liquidator's partiality or misconduct and therefore the removal application was dismissed; however Tempest, as a major creditor with a legitimate interest, was entitled to disclosure of specified liquidation documents under s256 subject to reasonable redactions for third party privacy.
6 Sept 2019
The Court refused to join the additional parties as formal parties but granted them rights of audience and service in relation to the liquidator's renewed disclosure application; recorded the liquidator's undertaking to refrain from enforcement steps pending resolution so no formal stay was required; found FTG Securities had not established creditor status for leave under s 284(1); and held the Court retains inherent jurisdiction to entertain leave applications by persons outside s 284(1) but such leave must be sought and will be granted only where threshold criteria akin to s 284 are met (fi…
7 Mar 2019
Rule 31.35 requires that interlocutory applications concerning a particular liquidation bear the heading of that liquidation, therefore an application seeking leave to remove a liquidator in respect of Castle, Tay and Lichfield could not be properly brought in the Livingspace Properties Ltd liquidation proceeding; those parts of the amended application disclosed no reasonably arguable case and were frivolous/abusive and were struck out, with the applicants directed to file separate s 284 applications in each relevant liquidation proceeding.
28 Feb 2014
The Court dismissed the discovery application because the documents sought were not shown to be relevant or necessary to determine the specific technical issues remaining in the originating application, the applicants' central contention (removal of the liquidator) was not before the Court, the proposed discovery was disproportionate to the issues, and orders directed at a non-party (Mr Marshall) could not properly be made without mandatory notice under r 8.21.
18 Nov 2013
Leave was granted because the applicant is arguably a creditor, but replacement of liquidators or broad supervisory directions were refused because the material did not show the liquidators acted unreasonably, their investigations (including s 261 inquiries and an interview) were ongoing and credible, the applicant's funding offer lacked substance and particulars, and independence/perception issues were insufficient to disqualify the liquidators; limited supervisory relief was ordered requiring the liquidators to decide on the proof of debt and to report to the Court on specific matters.
25 Sept 2009
Commissioner was the successful party in substance because the consent outcome achieved the practical relief he sought; accordingly he was entitled to costs up to the defendants' offer of 4 July 2007, but costs after that date were avoidable and awarded to the defendants; the Court allowed net costs to the Commissioner of $4,800 plus $90 disbursements after disallowing certain items (discovery, some case conferences) and offsetting defendants' entitlements.