Multipulse P/L (in Liq), Re

Two directors of Multipulse Pty Ltd, a company in liquidation, applied to discharge summons for their examination and to set aside the order for a public examination. The liquidator opposed the application. The key legal issue was whether the application was made within the required timeframe and if the directors complied with all procedural requirements, particularly serving the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) with the application and supporting affidavit. The court held that although the application was not made within the three-day timeframe, the court had the power to extend the time. However, the court found that the applicants failed to comply with rule 11.5(3) by not serving ASIC with the application and affidavit, which was necessary because ASIC had expressed an interest in the examination. Consequently, the court refused to discharge the summons or set aside the order for public examination. The court also granted an adjournment of the examination of one director due to a pre-arranged holiday, while the other director was not excused from attending and was required to produce relevant documents. The liquidator was ordered to be paid the costs of the application at the standard rate, with any additional costs due to the adjournment being reserved.

The court examined the application to discharge the summons for examination and to set aside the order for public examination. The applicants argued that the application was not made within the appropriate timeframe, but the court noted it had the power to extend the time. The primary issue was whether the applicants complied with all procedural requirements, specifically serving ASIC with the application and supporting affidavit. The court found that the applicants did not comply with rule 11.5(3) and, given ASIC's interest in the examination, it would be inappropriate to discharge the order without giving ASIC the opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the application was dismissed, except for the examination of one director, which was adjourned until after 28 July 2004. The liquidator was ordered to be paid the costs of the application at the standard rate, with any additional costs due to the adjournment being reserved.