Legal Research
Cases
Ariff v Fong

Ariff v Fong

Case [2010] NSWSC 696 30 June 2010

Voluntary Administration

Judicial Power of the Commonwealth

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Insolvency Law

Constitutional Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
79 ACSR 71
240 FLR 300

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Ariff v Fong [2010] NSWSC 696
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 18/06/10

JUDGMENT DATE :
30 June 2010

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Corporations List

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

DECISION: 1. Order that the summons issued under s 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) upon the application of Ian Kim Seng Fong summoning Yazni Ariff for examination be discharged.
2. Order that each order for the production of documents made against Yazni Ariff on the application of Ian Kim Seng Fong be discharged.
3. Order that the application of Ian Kim Seng Fong (being the application for orders to the effect that examination of Yazni Ariff pursuant to the said summons proceed and that documents be produced by her) be dismissed.
4. Order that Yazni Ariff’s costs of the applications of herself and Ian Kim Seng Fong determined by me this day be paid by Ian Kim Seng Fong.

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - voluntary administration - administration under deed of company arrangement - summons for examination issued under s 596B - applicant for summons an "eligible applicant" by virtue solely of ASIC authorisation - no time limit express or implied to "eligible applicant" status - deed of company arrangement terminated before any examination appointed or conducted - whether summons may be enforced and examination conducted after termination of deed - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - judicial power of the Commonwealth - court empowered by Commonwealth law to order that person submit to examination about affairs of company subject to deed of company arrangement - examination inquisitorial in nature and of itself not judicial - whether power to compel examination incidental to judicial power - whether court given general supervisory jurisdiction with respect to company subject to deed of company arrangement

LEGISLATION CITED: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), s 11(1)
Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 68
Constitution, Chapter III
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Part s5.3A, 5.9, ss 9, 53, 445C(a), 444D, 444F, 444G, 444H, 445D, 445H, 447A, 447D, 447E, 449B, 449D, 449E(2), 450E(2), 480, 493(4), 493(6), 493(12), 493(14), 500(3), 504, 507(9), 509(6), s 510(3), s 510(4), 511(1)(a), 511(1)(b), 536, 596B, 1321, 1337B
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) , s 78B

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Application of Fiorentino and Hamilton; Re J & L International Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1070
Australasian Memory Pty Ltd v Brien (1998) 45 NSWLR 111
Australasian Memory Pty ltd v Brien [2000] HCA 30; (2000) 200 CLR 270.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Ariff [2009] NSWSC 829
Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd [1993] HCA 15; (1993) 177 CLR 485
Ayerst (Inspector of Taxes) v C & K (Construction) Ltd [1976] AC 167
Cawthorn v Keira Constructions Pty Ltd (1994) 33 NSWLR 607
Commissioner of Taxation v Linter Textiles Australia Ltd [2005] HCA 20; (2005) 220 CLR 592
Gould v Brown…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ariff v Fong

Details

AGLC: Ariff v Fong [2010] NSWSC 696
Case: [2010] NSWSC 696
Decision Date: 30 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ariff v Fong involved a dispute concerning the voluntary administration of a corporation, specifically the administration under a deed of company arrangement. The applicant, authorised by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, sought to enforce a summons for examination issued under section 596B of the Corporations Act. The primary issue before the court was whether the summons could be enforced and an examination conducted after the deed of company arrangement had been terminated. The court had to determine whether the applicant's status as an "eligible applicant" was subject to any time limit and whether the power to compel examination was incidental to the judicial power of the court.

The court examined the nature of the summons for examination, noting that it was an inquisitorial process, not inherently judicial. The court considered whether the power to compel examination was incidental to the judicial power of the Commonwealth, and whether the court had been given a general supervisory jurisdiction over companies subject to a deed of company arrangement. The court concluded that the status of the applicant as an "eligible applicant" was not subject to any express or implied time limit and that the power to compel examination was indeed incidental to the judicial power. Consequently, the court held that the summons could be enforced and the examination conducted, even after the deed of company arrangement had been terminated.

The decision in Ariff v Fong clarifies that the status of an "eligible applicant" for a summons for examination is not subject to any time limit, and that the power to compel examination is incidental to the judicial power of the court. This decision provides guidance for future cases involving voluntary administration and the enforcement of summons for examination. The court's ruling ensures that the inquisitorial nature of the examination does not undermine its connection to the judicial power of the Commonwealth, and that the court retains its supervisory jurisdiction over companies subject to a deed of company arrangement.

Orders