Ligon 158 Pty Limited (in liq) v Shield Holdings Australia Pty Limited (de‑registered)

The case of Ligon 158 Pty Limited (in liq) v Shield Holdings Australia Pty Limited (de-registered) involved an application for the reinstatement of the registration of Shield, a company that had been deregistered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The plaintiffs, including Ligon 158 Pty Limited and Erma Pty Limited, sought to have Shield reinstated to pursue potential claims against it. The primary legal issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion to reinstate Shield's registration under section 601AH(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The court considered whether the plaintiffs were persons aggrieved within the meaning of section 601AH(2)(a)(ii) of the Act and whether it would be just to reinstate Shield's registration. The plaintiffs argued that they had potential claims against Shield, including debt claims and scheme-based claims, that needed to be investigated and potentially pursued. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission did not object to the application. The court also assessed whether the reinstatement of Shield's registration would be in the public interest and whether it would prejudice any party. The plaintiffs contended that the potential claims were not barred by previous settlements or statute-barred.

The court found that the plaintiffs had established that they met the requirements for reinstatement under section 601AH(2) of the Act. The court was satisfied that it was just to exercise its discretion to reinstate Shield's registration to allow the liquidator to investigate and, if appropriate, pursue claims potentially available to Shield. The court also granted a partial order for the winding up of the reinstated company on just and equitable grounds, appointing a liquidator other than the one proposed by the plaintiffs.

The final orders included directions for the plaintiffs and the interested parties to prepare minutes of order, confer on costs, and submit proposed orders and costs agreements. The reasons for judgment were to be suppressed for a period of seven days, with leave granted to apply for continued suppression. Costs were reserved for later determination.