Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Stone Assets Management Pty Ltd (No 3)

The case before the Court involved a winding up application filed by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission against Stone Assets Management Pty Ltd. The sole director and shareholder of the company, as well as the only claimants against the funds in liquidation, resided in the People’s Republic of China. The liquidator had access to limited books and records, and the primary issue before the Court was whether the liquidator was justified in not taking further steps to advertise for creditors in the People’s Republic of China and whether she could proceed on the basis that she had taken all reasonable steps to obtain the company’s books and records.

The Court considered the relevant statutory provision, section 479(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which allows the Court to direct the liquidator in a winding up. The Court examined the liquidator's actions and the circumstances surrounding the company's operations, including the location of its key personnel and the limited availability of the company's books and records. The Court found that the liquidator was justified in not advertising for creditors in the People’s Republic of China, given the limited availability of information and the impracticality of such an exercise. The Court also concluded that the liquidator had taken all reasonable steps to obtain the company's books and records, as those available to her were all that were reasonably accessible.

The Court allowed the application, directing that the liquidator would be justified in not taking further steps to advertise for creditors in the People’s Republic of China or elsewhere. The Court further directed that the liquidator could proceed in the winding up on the basis that she had taken all reasonable steps to obtain the company’s books and records and that what she had obtained were all that were reasonably available to her. The Court also ordered that the costs of the liquidator related to the amended interlocutory process were to be paid from the company's assets.