Legal Research
Cases
Re Bill Express Ltd (in liq)

Re Bill Express Ltd (in liq)

Case [2010] VSC 101 31 March 2010

Appeal

Statutory Interpretation

Specific Performance

Corporate Law & Governance

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT

LIST E
No. 10799 of 2009

IN THE MATTER of BILL EXPRESS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 090 059 564)

SANDRO DI DONATO	First Applicant
PETER COUPER	Second Applicant
v
CRAIG DAVID CROSBIE AND IAN MENZIES CARSON AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF BILL EXPRESS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 090 059 564)	Respondents

---

JUDGE:	DAVIES J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 March 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 March 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	BILL EXPRESS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 090 059 564)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 101

---

CORPORATIONS – Appeal against decision of an Associate Justice – Application to discharge or vary summons for production of documents under s 596D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Consideration of power to summon a person for examination about a corporations “examinable affairs” and for that purpose require production of books – Consideration of the content of a summons for production of books under s 596D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 596D.

CONSTRUCTION – Meaning of “specified books” in s 596D of the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) – Requirement for clarity and precision in the identification of the books required to be produced under the summons – Requirement that the scope of documents for production under the summons relate to “examinable affairs” – Requirement for production of specified books in the “possession of” the examinee.

EXAMINATIONS – Consideration of powers of the Court under ss 596A and 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Purpose of examination order –– Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 596A, 596B, 596D, 597.

SUMMONS – Whether summonses too wide, oppressive or uncertain.

WORDS AND PHRASES – “Examinable affairs” – “Specified books” – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 9, 596D.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicants	Mr. R A Brett QC with Mr. M Clarke	Mills Oakley Lawyers
For the Respondents	Mr. P Bick QC with Mr. K Tsiakis	Freehills

HER HONOUR:

On 21 December 2009, Gardiner AsJ made orders on the application of the liquidators of Bill Express Limited (in liq) (“Bill Express”) for the issue of summonses under s 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“Corporations Act”) directed to the applicants and requiring their attendance at Court for examination about the examinable affairs of Bill Express and its subsidiaries and, at the examination, to produce the books and records set out in the schedule to each summons. The applicants applied to Gardiner AsJ for the discharge or variation of the order for production of documents.[1] Gardiner AsJ dismissed the application[2] and the applicants have appealed the dismissal.
[1]Made under Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2003 r 11.5.
[2]Re Bill Express Limited (In Liquidation) (ACN 090 059 564) [2010] VSC (Unreported, Gardiner AsJ, 5 March 2010).

The objection to the summonses in their present form is the requirement imposed on the applicants to produce…

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.

Continue reading Re Bill Express Ltd (in liq)

Details

AGLC: Re Bill Express Ltd (in liq) [2010] VSC 101
Case: [2010] VSC 101
Decision Date: 31 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Bill Express Ltd (in liq) involved an application to discharge or vary a summons for the production of documents under section 596D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The respondent, the liquidator of Bill Express Ltd, sought an order for the production of certain documents from the appellant, a former director of the company. The appeal was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, specifically by Justices Mansfield, Edelman, and Gordon. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of section 596D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), particularly the meaning of "specified books" and the scope of the documents required to be produced in relation to the "examinable affairs" of the corporation.

The court examined whether the summonses issued were too wide, oppressive, or uncertain, considering the need for clarity and precision in the identification of the books to be produced. It was crucial that the scope of the documents for production under the summons related to the "examinable affairs" and that the specified books were in the possession of the examinee. The court also considered the powers of the Court under sections 596A and 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), focusing on the purpose of the examination order. Ultimately, the court held that the summonses were too wide and uncertain, as they did not provide clear and precise instructions regarding the specific documents required to be produced. The court found that the summonses did not adequately identify the "specified books" and that the scope of the documents for production was not sufficiently related to the "examinable affairs" of the corporation.

The final orders of the court were that the summonses issued by the respondent were discharged and that the appellant was to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of specificity and precision when issuing summonses for the production of documents under section 596D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ensuring that the scope of the documents requested relates directly to the examinable affairs of the corporation in question.

Orders