BOYS & ORS -v- PETER RAYMOND QUIGLEY (AS RECEIVER AND MANAGER OF GENEVA FINANCE LTD) [2002] WASCA 99
| (2002) 26 WAR 454 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 99 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:175/2001 | 8 APRIL 2002 | |
| Coram: | WALLWORK J MURRAY J ANDERSON J | 30/04/02 | |
| 18 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ALAN HAROLD BOYS RONALD GEORGE HOWARD DESMOND FRANK CRAWLEY ANTHONY HAYES DOUGLAS-BROWN ANTHONY HOWARD LEIBOWITZ KEVIN ERNEST JUDGE PETER RAYMOND QUIGLEY (AS RECEIVER AND MANAGER OF GENEVA FINANCE LTD) |
Catchwords: | Corporations Examinations Order for examination of former auditors Made on application of receiver and manager Purpose to assess whether to proceed with claim for damages against auditors Whether abuse of process Whether scope of examination order oppressive Whether examination should be public |
Legislation: | Corporate Law Reform Act 1992 (Cth) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 9, s 53, s 596A, s 596B, s 596C, s 596F, s 597A, s 597B, s 1337T(1) |
Case References: | Flanders v Beatty (1995) 16 ACSR 324 Gerah Imports Pty Ltd v Duke Group Ltd (In Liq) (1994) 12 ACLC 220 Grosvenor Hill (Qld) Pty Ltd v Barber (1994) 48 FCR 301 Hamilton v Oades (1989) 166 CLR 486 Hongkong Bank of Australia Ltd v Murphy (1992) 28 NSWLR 512 In re Spiraflite Ltd (1979) 1 WLR 1096 New Zealand Steel (Aust) Pty Ltd v Burton (1994) 13 ACSR 610 New Zealand Steel (Australia) Pty Ltd v Burton (1994) 13 ACSR 610 Re BPFC Ltd (In Liq) (1994) 14 ACSR 460 Re Dominion Trust Co (Critchley's Case) (1916) 27 DLR 580 Re Excel; Wortheley v England (1994) 52 FCR 69 Re Hugh J Roberts Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1970) 91 WN (NSW) 537 Re Interchase Corporation Ltd (In Liq) (1996) 20 ACSR 600 Re John Arnold's Surf Shop Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1979) 4 ACLR 663 Re Just Juice Corp Ltd; James v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 8 ACSR 444 Re Network Welding Pty Ltd (In Liq)(No 2) [2001] NSWSC 809; [2001] ACL Rep 120 NSW 117 Emanuel Investments Pty Ltd (In Liq); Saint v Macks [1999] SASC 264 Expo International Pty Ltd v Chant [1979] 2 NSWLR 820 Gray v Bridgestone Australia Ltd; Ewing v Fiandri Pty Ltd (1986) 4 ACLC 330 Newhart Developments Ltd v Co-operative Commercial Bank Ltd [1978] QB 814 Re Equitcorp Finance Ltd; ex parte Brock (1992) 6 ACSR 725 Re Ezishop.net Ltd (In Liq); Sims v Stone (2001) 38 ACSR 349 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : BOYS & ORS -v- PETER RAYMOND QUIGLEY (AS RECEIVER AND MANAGER OF GENEVA FINANCE LTD) [2002] WASCA 99 CORAM : WALLWORK J
- MURRAY J
ANDERSON J
- RONALD GEORGE HOWARD
DESMOND FRANK CRAWLEY
Continue reading Boys v Quigley
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Boys v Quigley [2002] WASCA 99
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 99
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The dispute arose between Boys and Quigley, where Quigley sought an examination order to investigate Boys' former auditors. Quigley, acting as the receiver and manager, applied for the order to determine whether to pursue a claim for damages against the auditors. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues revolved around the application of the examination order, its scope, and whether it constituted an abuse of process. Additionally, the court examined whether the examination should be conducted in public.
The Federal Court considered whether the examination order was an abuse of process and if its scope was oppressive. The court also deliberated on whether the examination should be public. In its reasoning, the court assessed the criteria for granting such an order and whether the requirements were met. The court concluded that while the application for an examination order was not an abuse of process, the scope of the order was oppressive, and the examination should not be public. The decision highlighted the need for careful consideration when granting such orders to avoid any potential abuse.
The court allowed the appeal and cross-appeal in part, finding that the scope of the examination order was indeed oppressive. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and fairness in such proceedings. It ordered that the examination should proceed, but with modifications to the scope to ensure it was not oppressive. The court also ruled that the examination should not be public, to protect the privacy of the parties involved and maintain the integrity of the proceedings. The decision provided clear guidance on the application of examination orders in similar future cases.
The Federal Court considered whether the examination order was an abuse of process and if its scope was oppressive. The court also deliberated on whether the examination should be public. In its reasoning, the court assessed the criteria for granting such an order and whether the requirements were met. The court concluded that while the application for an examination order was not an abuse of process, the scope of the order was oppressive, and the examination should not be public. The decision highlighted the need for careful consideration when granting such orders to avoid any potential abuse.
The court allowed the appeal and cross-appeal in part, finding that the scope of the examination order was indeed oppressive. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and fairness in such proceedings. It ordered that the examination should proceed, but with modifications to the scope to ensure it was not oppressive. The court also ruled that the examination should not be public, to protect the privacy of the parties involved and maintain the integrity of the proceedings. The decision provided clear guidance on the application of examination orders in similar future cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part
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.