Re Golden Sands Hospitality Pty Ltd (in liq)

In the matter of Re Golden Sands Hospitality Pty Ltd (in liq), the liquidator, appointed by the Court, sought to resign from the position and have new liquidators appointed in their place. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the central issue was whether the Court should permit the resignation of the original liquidator and the appointment of two new liquidators in their stead. The Court had to consider the appropriateness of the proposed replacements and whether it was suitable to have two liquidators rather than one. Additionally, the Court needed to determine whether the orders made by the Court needed to be varied due to an accidental slip that occurred during the pronouncement of the orders, given that the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) had been deferred until 1 September 2017 by the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth).

The Court considered that it had the discretion to permit the resignation of the original liquidator and the appointment of two new liquidators in their place, provided that the replacements were appropriate and that having two liquidators was suitable for the circumstances of the case. The Court found that the proposed replacements were suitable and that it was appropriate to have two liquidators to manage the external administration of the company. The Court also noted that the party claiming relief had not adverted to the commencement date of the new provisions in the Corporations Act, and that there had been an accidental slip in the orders pronounced by the Court. As a result, the Court considered it appropriate to vary the orders made to reflect the currently applicable version of section 473 of the Corporations Act.

The Court varied the orders made pursuant to sections 473A(1) and 473A(4) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to reflect the currently applicable version of section 473 of the Act. The Court found that it was appropriate to permit the resignation of the original liquidator and the appointment of two new liquidators in their place. The Court also noted that the party claiming relief had not adverted to the commencement date of the new provisions in the Corporations Act, and that there had been an accidental slip in the orders pronounced by the Court. The Court considered it appropriate to vary the orders made to reflect the currently applicable version of section 473 of the Corporations Act. The Court ordered that the liquidator resign and that two new liquidators be appointed in their place, subject to the satisfaction of the Court that the new liquidators were suitable for the position.