Re Nash

This matter concerned an application for leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Federal Court. The applicant, Mr Nash, sought to challenge the validity of a notice issued under s 169 of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth) requiring him to attend an examination concerning the affairs of a company. The respondent was the liquidator of that company.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the notice issued under s 169 of the *Corporations Act* was invalid by reason of the liquidator's failure to comply with the procedural requirements of s 169(2)(a) and s 169(2)(b) of the Act. Specifically, the applicant argued that the notice was defective because it did not specify the date, time, and place of the examination, nor did it state that the examination was to be conducted in private.

Gageler J, in dismissing the application for leave to appeal, held that the Full Federal Court had correctly determined that the notice was not invalid. His Honour reasoned that while s 169(2) sets out requirements for the content of a notice, these requirements are not mandatory in the sense that a failure to comply with them renders the notice void. Instead, the provisions are directory, meaning that a failure to comply will only invalidate the notice if it causes substantial prejudice to the person summoned. In this instance, the applicant had not demonstrated any such prejudice.

The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.