APL Co Pte Ltd v Thomas

APL Co Pte Ltd (the applicant) sought an order for the examination of a third party, Thomas (the respondent), under Chapter 5 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999* (Qld) (UCPR). The applicant was the plaintiff in underlying proceedings against a company called APL (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (the company). The applicant alleged that the company had engaged in fraudulent conduct and sought to recover damages. The respondent was the sole director and shareholder of the company. The applicant sought to examine the respondent concerning the company's affairs and assets, alleging that the respondent had knowledge of and was involved in the alleged fraudulent conduct. The application was heard by Judge Jarrett in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds to justify an order for the examination of the respondent as a third party under UCPR rule 567. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the applicant had demonstrated that the respondent possessed relevant information concerning the company's affairs and assets that was necessary for the applicant to pursue its claim against the company, and whether such an examination was otherwise warranted in the interests of justice.

Judge Jarrett applied the principles governing third-party examinations under the UCPR, which require a party seeking such an order to show that the third party has relevant documents or information and that the examination is necessary for the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court considered the applicant's evidence, which included allegations of fraudulent conduct and the respondent's role as director and shareholder. However, the court found that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that the respondent possessed specific information or documents that were not already available or discoverable through ordinary pre-trial procedures. The court noted that while the respondent was a director, this fact alone did not automatically entitle the applicant to a third-party examination without a more specific showing of necessity.

The application for an order for examination was dismissed.