In the matter of Lorie Najjar and Sons Pty Limited (in liquidation) (No 9)

The case before the court involved Lorie Najjar and Sons Pty Limited (in liquidation) and considered applications for the voluntary winding up of the company to be terminated or continued, as well as an application for costs. The winding up of the company had been subject to a stay by the court, and separate proceedings for equitable contribution had been commenced. The applicants sought to either terminate the winding up or continue the stay, and also raised issues regarding the apportionment of costs between the liquidator, the non-parties who funded the proceedings, and the company in liquidation.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the stay on the winding up should be continued pending the determination of the equitable contribution proceedings, and if the winding up should be terminated. The court also had to consider whether it was just for the non-parties, who had funded the proceedings and had a direct interest in their outcome, to pay the liquidator's costs ordered against them in the proceedings, and whether further costs should be payable by the liquidator or the non-parties.

The court determined that the stay on the winding up should be continued, as the equitable contribution proceedings were closely connected to the winding up and a determination in the contribution proceedings could significantly impact the winding up. The court found it appropriate for the non-parties, who had funded the proceedings and had a direct interest in their outcome, to pay the liquidator's costs ordered against them. An indemnity clause in the funding agreement supported this decision. The court also considered the costs payable by the liquidator or non-parties, ultimately determining that further costs should be borne by the non-parties.

The court ordered that the stay on the winding up be continued pending the determination of the equitable contribution proceedings, and that the non-parties were to pay the liquidator's costs ordered against them in the proceedings. The non-parties were also to bear the further costs of the application for costs.