Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd - [2007] NSWSC 1476

CITATION: Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1476
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 14/12/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
14 December 2007

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Corporations List

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 14 December 2007

DECISION: Orders that documents be produced to the court by ASIC and that special purpose liquidator have access to them

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - winding up - special purpose liquidator appointed by court in voluntary winding up - application by special purpose liquidator for order compelling third party to produce documents - where documents required in connection with adjourned Part 5.9 examinations - documents related to examinable affairs of company

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 68
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Part 5.9

CASES CITED: Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd [2007) NSWSC 1188

PARTIES: Onefone Australia Pty Limited - First Plaintiff
DCA Resources Australia Pty Limited - Second Plaintiff
Pacific Finance Group Pty Limited - Third Plaintiff
Talent2 Works Pty Ltd - Fourth Plaintiff
One.Tel Limited - First Defendant
Steven Sherman - Second Defendant
Peter Walker - Third Defendant
Paul Gerard Weston - Special Purpose Liquidator
Australian Securities and Investments Commission - Respondent
Consolidated Media Holdings - Non-party

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5291/03

COUNSEL: Mr N A Cotman SC - Applicant - Special Purpose Liquidator
Mr D R Stack - Respondent - Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Dr A S Bell SC - Non-party - Consolidated Media Holdings

SOLICITORS: NOT Lawyers - Special Purpose Liquidator
Georgina Hayden - Respondent - Solicitor for Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Atanaskovic Hartnell - Non-party

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST

BARRETT J

FRIDAY 14 DECEMBER 2007

5291/03 ONEFONE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD & 3 OTHERS v ONE.TEL LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) & 2 OTHERS

JUDGMENT

1 I grant leave to the special purpose liquidator to file in court the interlocutory process which I initial and date, together with the affidavit of Paul Gerard Weston sworn today and exhibit PGW 1 thereto.

2 I direct that the interlocutory process be returnable instanter.

3 The special purpose liquidator of One.Tel seeks an order under s 68 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 requiring production of certain documents to the court by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The special purpose liquidator also seeks an order that he have access to the material so produced.

4 Four questions have been agitated on this application. The first question refers back to my judgment of 23 October 2007 (Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd [2007) NSWSC 1188) and the need there discussed for some proper basis for an order under s 68. In this instance, the basis is that concerned with the conduct of examinations under Part 5.9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The special purpose liquidator has given evidence of steps taken to reactivate the adjourned examinations of Mr Miller and Mr Green. The material…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] NSWSC 1476
Decision Date: 14 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Onefone Australia Pty Ltd, a company in voluntary liquidation, brought an application for an order compelling One.Tel Ltd, a third party, to produce documents related to the examinable affairs of the company. The application was made by the special purpose liquidator appointed by the court to manage the liquidation. The documents were required for the adjourned Part 5.9 examinations. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the court had the power to compel a third party to produce documents in this context.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had the authority to compel a third party to produce documents in connection with adjourned Part 5.9 examinations. This question hinged on the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and case law. The court considered whether the special purpose liquidator's application fell within the scope of the court's powers under the Corporations Act 2001. Specifically, the court examined whether the documents were necessary for the examination of the company's affairs and whether the court had jurisdiction to order their production.

The court found that it did have the power to compel the production of documents in this situation. It relied on statutory provisions that granted the court broad discretion to make orders facilitating the investigation of a company's affairs during liquidation. The court emphasised that the documents in question were directly related to the examinable affairs of the company and were necessary for the liquidator to carry out their duties effectively. Therefore, the application was successful, and the court ordered One.Tel Ltd to produce the required documents.

The final orders of the court included a direction for One.Tel Ltd to produce the specified documents within a set timeframe. The court also provided guidance on the scope of the order and the circumstances in which the documents were to be produced. The decision underscored the court's willingness to exercise its powers to support the orderly and effective administration of a company's liquidation, particularly when it involved the examination of the company's affairs.

Orders