Re Eurostar Pty Ltd (in liq) - [2003] NSWSC 633

CITATION: Re: Eurostar Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) & Ors [2003] NSWSC 633

HEARING DATE(S): 11 July 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 July 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Campbell J

DECISION: Some disclosure of documents permitted, some refused.

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - receivers managers and controllers - when receiver appointed "eligible applicant" for purpose of conducting examinations under Part 5.9 Corporations Act 2001 - circumstances for receiver to disclose documents produced under compulsory process for such an examination - CORPORATIONS - winding up - "eligible applicant" appointed to conduct examinations - circumstances in which that "eligible applicant" can disclose documents produced on compulsory process for purpose of the examination

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

CASES CITED: New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Holding Limited [2001] NSWSC 835; [2001] ACL Rep 120 NSW 145
Wellness Pty Limited v Hamilton-Bond & Co [2002] NSWSC 1259

PARTIES :
David John Winterbottom - (Plaintiff/Applicant) - As Receiver of:
Eurostar Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
King Bros Bus Service Aldavilla Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
King Bros Bus Service Bellbrook Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
King Bros Bus Service Coffs Harbour Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
King Bros Bus Service Crescent Head Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
King Bros Bus Service Grafton Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
King Bros Bus Service Great Lakes Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
King Bros Bus Service Iluka Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
King Bros Bus Service Kempsey Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
King Bros Bus Service Nambucca Valley Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
King Bros Bus Service Port Macquarie Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
King Bros Bus Service South West Rocks Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
King Bros Bus Service Taree Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
King Bros Bus Service Wagga Wagga Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
King Bros Bus Service Yamba Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
M B Sales Australia Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
AP & PJ King Pty Limited (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2390/03

COUNSEL: J Stoljar - (Plaintiffs/Applicant)
K Horler AM QC - (A & P King)
CRC Newlinds - (Esanda)
J White - (CBA, CBFC Limited & Warwick Marks)
R Lancaster - (Irisbus)
L Shipway, solicitor - (DaimlerChrysler Australia/Pacific)

SOLICITORS: Mallesons Stephen Jaques - (Plaintiffs/Applicant)
Prider & Co Lawyers - (A & P King)
Minter Ellison - (Esanda)
L E Taylor - (CBA, CBFC Limited, Warwick Marks)
Blake Dawson Waldron - (Irisbus)
Allens Arthur Robinson - (DaimlerChrysler Australia/Pacific)

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

CAMPBELL J

FRIDAY 11 JULY 2003 - (Revised 14 July 2003)

2390/03 EUROSTAR PTY LTD (ADMST APPOINTED) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN THE MATTER OF) RE DAVID JOHN WINTERBOTTOM &…

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 Re Eurostar Pty Ltd (in liq) 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: [2003] NSWSC 633
Decision Date: 11 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Eurostar Pty Ltd (in liq) involved a dispute regarding the appointment of a receiver and manager as an eligible applicant to conduct examinations under Part 5.9 of the Corporations Act 2001. The liquidator of Eurostar sought to challenge the circumstances under which the receiver could disclose documents produced under compulsory process for such examinations. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether a receiver appointed as an eligible applicant under Part 5.9 of the Corporations Act 2001 could disclose documents produced under compulsory process, and if so, under what circumstances. The court was required to interpret the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act to determine the scope of the receiver's authority to disclose such documents.

The court found that the receiver, once appointed as an eligible applicant, could disclose documents produced under compulsory process, but only for the purpose of conducting examinations as outlined in the Corporations Act. The court emphasised that any disclosure must be strictly for the purposes of the examination and must not extend beyond what is necessary for the purpose of the examination. The court further clarified that the receiver must adhere to the statutory framework and must not use the documents for any other purpose, including for the purpose of the winding up of the company. The court's reasoning was grounded in a purposive interpretation of the Corporations Act, ensuring that the powers granted to the receiver were exercised in a manner consistent with the statutory objectives.

In conclusion, the court ruled that the receiver could disclose documents produced under compulsory process for the purpose of conducting examinations under Part 5.9 of the Corporations Act, but the disclosure must be strictly limited to that purpose. The court's decision provided clarity on the scope of the receiver's authority and the permissible use of documents produced under compulsory process in the context of corporate examinations.

Orders