In the matter of Sydney Allen Printers Pty Limited (in liquidation)

Sydney Allen Printers Pty Limited was in liquidation, and the liquidator sought orders for production in connection with examinations of the company’s directors and officers. Several recipients of the orders sought leave to inspect the liquidator’s affidavit in support of the orders, but the Registrar declined to grant leave. The recipients then applied to the court for an extension of time to review the Registrar’s decision, arguing that there was no prejudice from the delay and that they needed access to the affidavit to determine whether to appeal the orders for production. The court was required to decide whether the recipients were entitled to inspect the affidavit and whether the delay in reviewing the Registrar’s decision would cause any prejudice.

The court found that the recipients were not prejudiced by the delay in reviewing the Registrar’s decision, as they had not sought to set aside or challenge the propriety of the examination summonses. The court also found that the recipients had a legitimate interest in inspecting the affidavit to determine whether to appeal the orders for production, and that the liquidator had no valid reason to withhold the affidavit. The court concluded that the recipients were entitled to inspect the affidavit and that the Registrar’s decision should be reviewed. The court noted that the liquidator’s concern about revealing sensitive information was not sufficient to withhold the affidavit, as the recipients could be ordered to keep the contents confidential.

The court ordered that the recipients be given leave to inspect the liquidator’s affidavit and that the Registrar’s decision to refuse leave be set aside. The court also ordered that the liquidator be given an opportunity to provide further submissions on the issue of confidentiality before the affidavit was disclosed to the recipients. The court emphasised that its decision was limited to the specific circumstances of this case and did not set a precedent for broader access to affidavits in support of orders for production. The court noted that the liquidator’s concerns about revealing sensitive information were legitimate, but that the recipients’ need to determine whether to appeal the orders for production outweighed those concerns in this case.