Hastie Group Limited (in liq) v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd (Formerly Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd) (No 4)

In the matter of Hastie Group Limited (in liquidation) and the liquidator of Hastie Group Limited versus Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd (formerly Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd) and others, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with adjudicating on various claims brought forth by the companies in liquidation and their liquidator. The central dispute involved matters of principle common to various claims that were determined during a liability trial. The court had to decide on the relief sought by the liquidator under the Corporations Act, the validity of declaratory relief, the enforceability of bank guarantee claims, the impact of limitation periods on certain claims, and the status of claims that were no longer being pursued by the applicants. Furthermore, the court considered whether certain evidentiary issues needed resolution before referring matters to a referee and evaluated applications for costs and winding up orders.

The court ruled that the liquidator's proposed orders and directions, though not formally applied for, should be dismissed as they were inconsistent with the court's findings on liability. The court also dismissed Lendlease's application for summary judgment, noting that the usual costs order should follow the event of an unsuccessful interlocutory application. Regarding the proposed declaration on the surplus proceeds of bank guarantees, the court exercised its discretion and declined to make such a declaration as it was not pleaded and did not represent a real controversy in the dispute. The court also highlighted the implications of s 1305 of the Corporations Act, emphasizing that while company books could be prima facie evidence of recorded matters, they were not conclusive without considering the context and any contradictory evidence.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the proceeding, mandate the plaintiffs to pay the costs of respondents who were granted leave to appear or filed submissions, and to dismiss the winding up proceeding without staying it. Costs for the dismissed claims were ordered to be paid forthwith on an ordinary basis, reserving the right for respondents who made Calderbank offers or settlement offers to pursue indemnity costs. The court refrained from appointing a referee and deferred decisions on evidentiary issues to a future docket judge, pending the outcome of ordered mediations.