SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
| Case Title: | Bloc (ACT) Pty Ltd v Crafted Capitol Pty Ltd (No 3) |
| Citation: | [2021] ACTSC 178 |
| Hearing Date: | 23 July 2021 |
| Decision Date: | 5 August 2021 |
| Before: | McWilliam AsJ |
| Decision: | See [35] |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUBPOENAS – Application to set aside subpoena – whether legitimate forensic purpose – |
| whether oppressive | |
| Legislation Cited: | Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act |
| 2009 (ACT) Court Procedures Rules (2006) (ACT) rr 6604, 1728 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 482 | |
| Cases Cited: | Alister v R (1984) 154 CLR 404 A Pty Ltd v Z [2007] NSWSC 999 Bloc (ACT) Pty Ltd v Crafted Capitol Pty Ltd [2021] ACTSC 81 Re Warbler Pty Ltd (1982) 6 ACLR 526 |
| Ryan v Commercial and Residential Developments (SA) Pty | |
| Ltd [2013] FCA 656 | |
| Sahore v Ahmad [2021] ACTSC 30 | |
| Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and | |
| Environment v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145 | |
| Parties: | Crafted Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 168 210 624) (First Applicant) |
| Crafted Central Pty Ltd (ACN 605 053 709) (Second Applicant) Crafted Capitol Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (ACN 605 053 763) (First Respondent) | |
| Henry Joseph Kazar in his capacity as joint and several liquidator of Crafted Capitol Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (Second Respondent) | |
| Lachlan Macarthur Abbott in his capacity as joint and several liquidator of Crafted Capitol Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (Third Respondent) | |
| Bloc (ACT) Pty Ltd (ACN 149 091 592) (Fourth Respondent) | |
| Representation: | Counsel |
| Dr A J Greinke (Fourth Respondent) | |
| K Petch (Applicants) | |
| Solicitors | |
| Mills Oakley (Fourth Respondent) | |
| Terracon Legal (Applicants) | |
| File Number: | SC 79 of 2021 |
| McWilliam AsJ: |
1. Before the Court is an application to set aside a subpoena issued to a non-party, namely the proper officer of PKS Kapital Pty Ltd (ACN 605 835 596) (PKS). For reasons that follow, I have determined effectively that the subpoena should be set aside in part. It is appropriate to limit both the categories and the scope of what is required to be produced under the existing subpoena.
Background context to the present application
2. On 29 April 2021, upon the application of Bloc (ACT) Pty Ltd (Bloc) as petitioning creditor, Mossop J ordered that Crafted Capitol Pty Ltd (Capitol) be wound up in insolvency: Bloc (ACT) Pty Ltd v Crafted Capitol Pty Ltd [2021] ACTSC 81 (Winding Up Judgment) at [74].
3. As set out in the Winding Up Judgment, the genesis of the application to wind up Capitol was the failure by Capitol to pay a judgment debt. That judgment debt was the product of an adjudication award under the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2009 (ACT). Bloc was the builder of a development project on London Circuit. Capitol was the developer for that project.
4. On 1 June 2021, two further creditors of Capitol, namely Crafted Central Pty Ltd (Central) and Crafted Holdings Pty Ltd (Holdings), applied to this Court seeking an order pursuant…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bloc (ACT) Pty Ltd v Crafted Capitol Pty Ltd (No 3) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] ACTSC 178
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the subpoena's relevance and whether it was oppressive. The subpoena's legitimacy was assessed based on whether it could materially assist in the s 482 Application. The court found that the subpoena did not have a legitimate forensic purpose for most of the documents sought, as they were not relevant to the s 482 Application. However, some documents related to the financial relationship between PKS and Crafted Central were deemed relevant, as the solvency of Crafted Capitol depended on financial support from Crafted Central, which in turn relied on debts owed to PKS.
The court amended the subpoena to limit the scope of the documents required to be produced, including tax returns, financial statements, loan agreements, and minutes of meetings regarding the payment of monies to Bloc. The court found that the subpoena was not oppressive as it was limited to the payment of monies to Bloc. The costs of the application were reserved to be determined as part of the costs of the s 482 Application.
In conclusion, the court set aside the subpoena in part and limited the scope of the documents required to be produced. The subpoena was amended to require production of specific documents related to the financial relationship between PKS and Crafted Central. The costs of the application were reserved to be determined as part of the costs of the s 482 Application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.