McDonald v Dare

This case concerns an application by Warwick McDonald and William Doolan to remove Tracy Dare and Philip Hennessy as liquidators of Doolan Properties, a company in liquidation. The applicants allege that the liquidators' removal is necessary due to the prospect, existence, or appearance of bias or conflict of interest, particularly in light of a Supreme Court proceeding filed against the respondents. The case focuses on two main legal issues: the applicants' standing to remove the liquidators and the appropriateness of appointing a third liquidator to address the perceived bias. The court found that the applicants have standing, with McDonald having been assigned a debt by Marilane, and Doolan having a real interest in the outcome of the liquidation due to the possibility of surplus assets. However, the court dismissed the application for removal, noting that the respondents had acknowledged the appearance of bias and proposed the appointment of a third liquidator to handle specific matters, a suggestion that aligned with legal precedents supporting cost-efficiency in liquidation proceedings. The court ultimately found that the applicants had not shown sufficient cause for removal, particularly considering the advanced stage of the liquidation and the potential cost savings of appointing a third liquidator instead of replacing the existing ones. The application was dismissed, with the court reserving the right to hear submissions on costs.