Re Metal Storm Ltd (subject to deed of company arrangement)

Metal Storm Ltd, as liquidator, brought an application against various defendants concerning debts owed by Metal Storm Ltd. The primary judgment had been entered, but there were disputed issues that needed resolution to implement the primary judgment. The court was tasked with determining the obligations of the relevant defendant to comply with directions, the entitlement to vote at a creditors' meeting, and the failure to appoint a controller during the decision period. Additionally, the court dismissed the relevant defendant's cross-claim and considered whether the construction of a limitation on liability clause was an issue relating to the quantum of damages.

The court addressed the obligations of the relevant defendant to comply with the directions issued by the court. It was established that the defendant had failed to appoint a controller during the decision period, which was a critical requirement. The court also assessed the entitlement of the relevant defendant to vote at the creditors' meeting, which was another significant point of contention. Furthermore, the court dismissed the cross-claim brought by the relevant defendant, finding that it was not appropriate to proceed with that claim at that stage. The court examined whether the construction of the limitation on liability clause should be considered an issue relating to the quantum of damages, which would require a separate determination.

In considering the application for leave to re-open the proceedings to address issues relating to the limitation on liability clause and causation, the court determined that leave should not be granted. The court emphasised the importance of finality in proceedings and the need to avoid piecemeal litigation. The court also addressed the issue of costs, noting that while the general rule is that costs follow the event, there were circumstances where it was appropriate to depart from this rule. The court found that in this case, there was a mixed outcome, and therefore, a departure from the general rule was justified to ensure a fair allocation of costs.

The court made orders dismissing the application for leave to re-open and setting out the costs to be borne by each party. The orders reflected the court's determination on the various issues and the mixed outcome of the proceedings. The costs were apportioned in a manner that the court deemed fair, taking into account the mixed outcome and the reasons for departing from the general rule.