Parkinson v Morkaya

The case of Parkinson v Morkaya involved a dispute over the appointment of a liquidator for a corporation. The plaintiff, Parkinson, was the original liquidator appointed by the Court. However, the defendant, Morkaya, sought to replace the liquidator, arguing that Parkinson was not qualified for the role. The dispute ultimately reached the Court, which was required to determine whether the defendant had the right to choose a replacement liquidator.

The primary legal issue was whether the defendant had the right to select a replacement liquidator for the corporation. The Court needed to consider whether the original liquidator's resignation due to a lack of qualification meant that the defendant could choose a new liquidator. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether there was any significant difference in the fitness of the two nominees, given that the original liquidator was the plaintiff's nominee, while the defendant's nominee was more vulnerable to allegations of bias.

The Court ruled that the defendant did not have the right to choose a replacement liquidator. It found that the original liquidator's resignation did not entitle the defendant to appoint a new liquidator of their choosing. The Court also noted that there was nothing to distinguish the fitness of the two nominees, other than the greater vulnerability of the defendant's nominee to allegations of bias. As a result, the Court appointed the plaintiff's nominee as the liquidator for the corporation.