Re Kingdom Developments 14 Pty Ltd (Receivers And Managers Appointed) - [2024] WASC 271

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   RE KINGDOM DEVELOPMENTS 14 PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED); EX PARTE WHITE and WOODHOUSE as joint and several receivers and managers of KINGDOM DEVELOPMENTS 14 PTY LTD & ANOR [2024] WASC 271
CORAM:   MASTER RUSSELL
HEARD:   17 MAY 2024
DELIVERED          :   30 JULY 2024
PUBLISHED           :   2 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   COR 156 of 2023
MATTER:   IN THE MATTER OF KINGDOM DEVELOPMENTS 14 PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 638 164 486)

EX PARTE
HAYDEN LEIGH WHITE and DANIEL HILLSTON WOODHOUSE in their capacity as joint and several receivers and managers of KINGDOM DEVELOPMENTS 14 PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 638 164 486)
First and Second Named First Plaintiffs
KINGDOM DEVELOPMENTS 14 PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 638 164 486)
Second Plaintiff

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure – Leave to issue subpoena – Whether legitimate forensic purpose – Whether exceptional circumstances – Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 420A, s 424
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 36B r 2(2B)(c), O 36B r 2(2D)

Result:

Leave to issue subpoena granted subject to revision of terms of subpoena

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First and Second Named First Plaintiffs	:	Ms R Young SC
Second Plaintiff	:	Ms R Young SC
Interested Party	:	Ms E C Hensler

Solicitors:

First and Second Named First Plaintiffs	:	Mills Oakley
Second Plaintiff	:	Mills Oakley
Interested Party	:	Lannock Capital 2 Pty Ltd

Cases referred to in decision(s):

Hongkong Xinhe International Investment Company Ltd v Bullseye Mining Ltd [No 4] [2021] WASC 287
Mineral Resources Ltd v Destec Pty Ltd [No 2] [2021] WASC 357
Preston, in the matter of Sandalwood Properties Ltd [2018] FCA 547
Re Ansett Australia Ltd (No 3) (2002) 115 FCR 409
Sandy v Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corp RNTBC [2019] WASC 322
Song v South Beach Management Pty Ltd (as trustee for South Beach Two Development trust) [2020] WASCA 402
Stanley v Layne Christensen Co [2004] WASCA 50
Weeks v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [No 3] [2019] WASC 268

MASTER RUSSELL:

Introduction

This proceeding was commenced by originating process filed on 5 October 2023 by the plaintiffs, Hayden Leigh White and Daniel Hillston Woodhouse, in their capacity as joint and several receivers of Kingdom Developments 14 Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed) (Company).
In the proceeding, the plaintiffs (Receivers) seek directions pursuant to s 424 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Directions Application).
The Receivers seek leave to issue a subpoena to produce documents to interested party, Lannock Capital 2 Pty Ltd (Lannock) in terms of the draft subpoena filed with the application[1] (Leave Application). Although the Leave Application was made ex parte, Lannock was on notice of the application and sought to oppose it.
[1] The application is made by letter dated 12 March 2024 attaching the draft subpoena (Folio 19).
In support of the Leave Application, the…

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 Kingdom Developments 14 Pty Ltd (Receivers And Managers A... 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: [2024] WASC 271
Decision Date: 2 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Kingdom Developments 14 Pty Ltd, the defendant, and the liquidators of Kingdom Developments 12 Pty Ltd, the plaintiffs. The dispute centred around the issuance of a subpoena by the plaintiffs, seeking information from the defendant. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiffs, as liquidators, sought to issue a subpoena to the defendant to obtain specific information relevant to their investigation into the financial dealings of the defendant company. The defendant contested the issuance of the subpoena, arguing it was not for a legitimate forensic purpose and lacked exceptional circumstances.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the subpoena served by the plaintiffs had a legitimate forensic purpose and whether the circumstances were exceptional enough to warrant its issuance. The court had to determine if the information sought was necessary for the liquidators' investigation and whether there were any exceptional circumstances that justified the subpoena's issuance despite the potential prejudice to the defendant. The court examined the nature of the information requested, the purpose behind the request, and the potential impact on the defendant's rights.

The court found that the plaintiffs' request for information was not for a legitimate forensic purpose and did not meet the threshold of exceptional circumstances required for the issuance of a subpoena. The judge held that the information sought did not significantly advance the investigation and that the plaintiffs could achieve their objectives through less intrusive means. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of the parties involved and ensuring that any investigative measures taken were proportionate and justified. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiffs' application for leave to issue the subpoena.

The court's decision underscored the need for a careful assessment of the legitimacy and necessity of forensic measures in litigation. The ruling reinforced the principle that exceptional circumstances must be clearly demonstrated to justify the issuance of a subpoena. The plaintiffs were not granted leave to issue the subpoena, and the defendant was relieved of the burden of complying with the subpoena's demands. This decision serves as a reminder of the court's role in safeguarding the rights of defendants and ensuring that investigative processes are fair and balanced.

Orders