LAL v BIBER

The applicant, LAL, sought interlocutory relief against the first respondent, BIBER, and the second respondent, a company in liquidation. The dispute concerned alleged underpayment of entitlements and penalties. The applicant had not sought leave to proceed against the second respondent, which was in liquidation, and therefore proceedings against it were stayed by operation of either section 471B or 500(2) of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth). The applicant remained at liberty to pursue its claim against the first respondent.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant could proceed against the first respondent despite the stay on proceedings against the second respondent, and whether leave should be granted to join a proposed third respondent to the proceedings. The applicant's claim against the second respondent was based on allegations of being 'knowingly involved' in the underpayments.

Judge Riethmuller determined that the applicant was entitled to proceed against the first respondent, as the stay on proceedings against the second respondent did not preclude action against other parties. Furthermore, the court found it appropriate to grant leave to join the proposed third respondent, allowing the applicant to pursue its claims against all relevant parties.