Spigelman CJ at 1; Giles JA at 2; Handley AJA at 2
DECISION:
(1) Application dismissed with costs. (2) The interlocutory application by the special purpose liquidator heard by Barrett J on 14 May 2010 is remitted to the Equity Division.
CATCHWORDS:
CORPORATIONS – winding up – court approval for liquidator’s litigation funding agreement – ex parte hearing – confidentiality orders – right to be heard – major creditors – committee of inspection – creditor seeking removal of liquidator. - NATURAL JUSTICE – right to be heard – necessity for relevant right, interest or expectation – must exist in fact – no freestanding right to be heard.
– winding up – court approval for liquidator’s litigation funding agreement – ex parte hearing – confidentiality orders – right to be heard – major creditors – committee of inspection – creditor seeking removal of liquidator.
– right to be heard – necessity for relevant right, interest or expectation – must exist in fact – no freestanding right to be heard.
HEAD NOTE
A Judge heard in closed court an ex parte application by a liquidator for approval for a litigation funding agreement, granted approval, and made confidentiality orders in relation to the application, the evidence, the agreement and his reasons for granting approval. He directed that the relevant documents be placed in a sealed envelope which was only to be opened by the order of a Judge. Three of the four members of the committee of inspection, and some major creditors sought to set aside the ex parte orders in order to obtain access to the litigation funding agreement. The application was referred to the Court of Appeal. At the close of the hearing the Judges opened the sealed envelope and read the confidential documents in private. HELD: (1)…
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 Deloughery v Weston
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Deloughery v Weston [2010] NSWCA 148
Case
[2010] NSWCA 148
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an application by Deloughery, the liquidator of a company, against Weston. The dispute concerned the liquidator's right to pursue certain claims against Weston.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the liquidator had standing to bring the proceedings against Weston. This involved determining the scope of the liquidator's powers and the nature of the claims being advanced.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the liquidator lacked the necessary standing to pursue the claims as framed. The Court remitted an interlocutory application previously heard by Barrett J to the Equity Division for further consideration.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Application dismissed with costs.
(2) The interlocutory application by the special purpose liquidator heard by Barrett J on 14 May 2010 is remitted to the Equity Division.