McNabb v Ivanoff

Case [2010] QCAT 692


CITATION: Cowley v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 98
PARTIES: Mr John Wellesley Cowley
v
Queensland Building Services Authority
APPLICATION NUMBER:   OCR090-10   
MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE:      On the papers
HEARD AT:    Brisbane
DECISION OF: Ms Peta Stilgoe, Member
DELIVERED ON: 21 March 2011
DELIVERED AT:       Brisbane
ORDERS MADE: Application to issue notice to produce is refused.
CATCHWORDS:  Notice to produce – where Authority refused application for permitted individual – where application that liquidator produce documents – where scope of documents sought very wide – where relevance of documents not established

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. Mr Cowley has applied for a review of the Authority’s decision to refuse to categorise him as a permitted individual.  He was a director of Secured Mortgage Management Limited, now in liquidation.

  2. Mr Cowley has applied for a notice to be issued to the liquidator of Secured requiring the production of twenty classes of documents.

  3. Section 63(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) provides:

    The tribunal may make an order requiring a person who is not a party to a proceeding but who has, or is likely to have, in the person’s possession or control a document or other thing relevant to the proceeding to produce the document or thing.

  4. In order to identify whether a document is relevant to the proceedings, it is necessary to look at the law relating to permitted individuals.  Section 56AD(8) of the Queensland Building Services Act 1991 provides that a person may be categorised as a permitted individual if the Authority (and, by implication, the tribunal) is satisfied that the individual took all reasonable steps to avoid the coming into existence of the relevant event.  The matters that the tribunal can consider when making that decision are set out in section 56AD(8A); what action a person took in:

a)Keeping proper books of account and financial records;

b)Seeking appropriate financial or legal advice before entering into the financial or business arrangements or conducting business;

c)Reporting fraud or theft to the police;

d)Ensuring guarantees provided were covered by sufficient assets;

e)Putting in place appropriate credit management;

f)Making appropriate provision for taxation debts.

  1. The Authority’s decision to refuse Mr Cowley permitted individual status recites, at paragraph 30, that Mr Cowley’s submissions did not include evidence about a number of matters.  On 10 June 2010, the tribunal gave directions that allowed Mr Cowley access to extensive documentation relating to the twelve loans identified by the Authority.  Access to those documents should have addressed a number of the points raised by the Authority in paragraph 30.

  2. I do not see how this request for production of documents addressed the balance of the Authority’s concerns.  It seems to me that, rather than seeking documents that address what action Mr Cowley took to prevent the liquidation of Secured, the request focuses on documents that may exculpate Mr Cowley from any management responsibility within the company.  It is a broad and wide ranging request – the word “fishing” comes to mind – and I am not satisfied that the request for documents addresses the issues to be determined by the tribunal pursuant to section 56AD.  Whether the request does, in fact, address section 56AD may be clearer when Mr Cowley files his submissions.  The application is premature; it should be refused.

Details
AGLC
McNabb v Ivanoff [2011] QCAT 98
Case
[2010] QCAT 692
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of McNabb v Ivanoff involved a dispute where the liquidator of a company sought an order for a third party, Ivanoff, to produce certain documents. The applicant in this case was McNabb, acting in his capacity as the liquidator. The dispute centred around the scope and relevance of the documents that Ivanoff was asked to produce. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue that the court had to decide was whether it was appropriate to compel Ivanoff to produce the wide-ranging documents sought by the liquidator. The court needed to determine if the documents were relevant to the liquidator’s investigation and if there was a sufficient basis to justify the issuance of a notice to produce under the relevant legislation. The court also had to consider the balance between the rights of the third party, Ivanoff, and the rights of the liquidator to obtain necessary information.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the scope of the documents sought by the liquidator was excessively broad and that the relevance of the documents to the investigation had not been adequately established. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that any order for a third party to produce documents was both necessary and proportionate to the investigation at hand. Given the wide scope of the documents requested and the lack of demonstrated relevance, the court determined that it was not appropriate to compel Ivanoff to produce the documents. Consequently, the application to issue a notice to produce was refused.

The court’s decision highlights the necessity for liquidators to carefully consider the scope and relevance of the documents they seek from third parties. The ruling serves as a reminder that courts will scrutinise such applications to ensure they are justified and proportionate. The final order of the court was that the application to issue a notice to produce documents to Ivanoff was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application to issue notice to produce is refused.

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.