Krejci, in the matter of Greatcell Solar Limited (in liquidation)

Case [2022] FCA 723


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Krejci, in the matter of Greatcell Solar Limited (in liquidation) [2022] FCA 723

File number(s): NSD 368 of 2022
Judgment of: GOODMAN J
Date of judgment: 22 June 2022
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to serve Examination Summons and Order for Production outside of Australia pursuant to r 10.44 of the Federal Court Rules – application granted
Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

Cases cited:

Clifton (Liquidator), in the matter of Solar Shop Australia Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2014] FCA 891

Waller v Freehills [2009] FCAFC 89; (2009) 177 FCR 507

Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 11
Date of hearing: 22 June 2022
Solicitor for the Plaintiffs: Ms L Bullen of Colin Biggers & Paisley Lawyers

ORDERS

NSD 368 of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF GREATCELL SOLAR LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 111 723 883)

PETER KREJCI AND ANDREW CUMMINS IN THEIR CAPACITY AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF GREATCELL SOLAR LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 111 723 883) AND GREATCELL SOLAR AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 131 374 064)

Plaintiffs

ORDER MADE BY:

GOODMAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 JUNE 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to rule 10.44 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the plaintiffs have leave to serve the following documents upon Mr Robert McIntyre in the United Kingdom:

(a)the Summons for Examination issued to Mr Robert McIntyre under order 1(b) made on 7 June 2022; and

(b)the Order for Production issued to Mr Robert McIntyre under order 2(b) made on 7 June 2022.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered extempore and revised)

GOODMAN J

  1. The plaintiffs, who are the liquidators of Greatcell Solar Limited (in liquidation) (GSL) and Greatcell Solar Australia Pty Ltd (together, the Companies), seek an order pursuant to r 10.44 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that leave be given to serve, outside of Australia, an Examination Summons and an Order for Production upon Mr Robert McIntyre, a director of GSL.

  2. Rule 10.44 of the Rules provides in so far is presently relevant:

    10.44  Service of other documents

    (1)  A party may apply to the Court for leave to serve a document filed in or issued by the Court, other than an originating application, on a person in a foreign country in accordance with a convention, the Hague Convention or the law of the foreign country.

    (2)  An application under subrule (1) must be accompanied by an affidavit that includes the information mentioned in paragraphs 10.43(3)(a) to (c).

  3. Rule 10.43(3)(a) to (c) provides:

    (3)  The application under subrule (2) must be accompanied by an affidavit stating:

    (a)  the name of the foreign country where the person to be served is or is likely to be; and

    (b)  the proposed method of service; and

    (c)  that the proposed method of service is permitted by:

    (i)  if a convention applies—the convention; or

    (ii)  if the Hague Convention applies—the Hague Convention; or

    (iii)  in any other case—the law of the foreign country.

  4. The Summons and the Order were issued by the Court on 8 June 2022, pursuant to Part 5.9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and r 30.34 of the Rules. The Summons is not an originating application: see Waller v Freehills [2009] FCAFC 89; (2009) 177 FCR 507 at [79]-[90]. Similarly, the Order is not an originating application. The present application is for service on Mr McIntyre in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. Thus, r 10.44(1) is satisfied.

  5. The application is supported by an affidavit of Mr Peter Harkin, a partner of Colin Biggers & Paisley, Lawyers who act for the plaintiffs. Mr Harkin’s affidavit includes the information mentioned in r 10.43(3)(a) to (c). Thus, r 10.44(2) is also satisfied.

  6. The first of these matters is the name of the foreign country where Mr McIntyre is or is likely to be (r 10.43(3)(a)). Mr Harkin has identified that Mr McIntyre’s last known address is an address in the United Kingdom (his country of birth) that Mr McIntyre provided to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

  7. The second matter addressed by Mr Harkin is the proposed method of service (r 10.43(3)(b)). Mr Harkin’s evidence is that he intends to engage a solicitor to effect personal service of the documents upon Mr McIntyre.

  8. The third matter addressed by Mr Harkin is that the proposed method of service is permitted by one of the methods identified in r 10.43(3)(c). Mr Harkin’s evidence is, and I am satisfied that, the Convention applies; and that personal service of the Summons and the Order in the United Kingdom can be effected on an individual by a solicitor.

  9. Thus, the preconditions to the exercise of the Court’s discretion to give leave have been established.

  10. I am satisfied that leave should be granted for the following reasons. First, the preconditions have been satisfied. Secondly, the plaintiffs seek to conduct public examinations into the affairs of the Companies and Mr McIntyre was a director of GSL from 13 March 2015 and as such is likely to be a person able to produce documents and to provide information for the purposes of the examinations. Thirdly, service of the Summons and the Order in accordance with the Convention will not likely infringe upon the sovereignty of another country, for the reasons explained by White J in Clifton (Liquidator), in the matter of Solar Shop Australia Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2014] FCA 891 at [10]-[13]. Finally, no reasons against the grant of leave have been advanced.

  11. I will make the order sought accordingly. 

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Goodman.

Associate:      

Dated:       22 June 2022

Details
AGLC
Krejci, in the matter of Greatcell Solar Limited (in liquidation) [2022] FCA 723
Case
[2022] FCA 723
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Greatcell Solar Limited (in liquidation), the plaintiffs sought leave to serve Examination Summons and an Order for Production outside of Australia. The defendant, Mr Robert McIntyre, resides in the United Kingdom. The plaintiffs aimed to enforce these documents under the Federal Court Rules. The Federal Court was tasked with deciding whether the plaintiffs could serve these documents on the defendant outside Australia and if the application met the criteria under rule 10.44 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs' application complied with rule 10.44 and whether there were compelling reasons to allow the service of these documents outside of Australia. The court had to consider the balance between the plaintiffs' right to enforce documents and the defendant's right to be served in accordance with the rules. The plaintiffs argued that Mr McIntyre's presence in the UK and the need for the documents to be served outside Australia justified the application. The court weighed the potential inconvenience to the defendant against the plaintiffs' need to obtain the necessary evidence.

The court found that the application met the requirements under rule 10.44, considering the compelling circumstances presented. The plaintiffs demonstrated that Mr McIntyre's presence in the UK and the urgency of obtaining the documents justified serving the summons and order outside of Australia. The court granted the plaintiffs' application, allowing them to serve the Examination Summons and Order for Production on Mr McIntyre in the United Kingdom. The court emphasised that the decision was based on the specific circumstances of this case and did not set a broad precedent.

The court made an order that the plaintiffs have leave to serve the Examination Summons and Order for Production on Mr Robert McIntyre in the United Kingdom, in accordance with rule 10.44 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). This ruling ensures that the plaintiffs can proceed with their legal action, subject to the terms set out in the order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to rule 10.44 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the plaintiffs have leave to serve the following documents upon Mr Robert McIntyre in the United Kingdom:

(a) the Summons for Examination issued to Mr Robert McIntyre under order 1(b) made on 7 June 2022; and

(b) the Order for Production issued to Mr Robert McIntyre under order 2(b) made on 7 June 2022.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.