Re Oakwood Partners - [2022] VSC 338

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT
CORPORATIONS LIST

S ECI 2022 01026

IN THE MATTER OF ACN 602 353 391 PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (formerly trading as OAKWOOD PARTNERS)

NICHOLAS GIASOUMI and SHANE LESLIE DEANE in their capacity as joint and several liquidators of A.C.N. 602 353 391 PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 602 353 391) formerly trading as ‘OAKWOOD PARTNERS’

Plaintiffs

---

JUDGE:	ATTIWILL J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	6 and 16 May 2022
DATE OF RULING:	20 May 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Oakwood Partners
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 338

---

WARRANT – Ex parte application by liquidators for a warrant under s 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Whether Court is satisfied of matters under s 530C – Conditions of the warrant – Undertaking required – Application Granted – Warrant issued.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr Purton	Madgwicks Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiffs (the Liquidators) are joint and several liquidators of ACN 602 353 391 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (the Company). They were appointed on 10 January 2022.

The Liquidators applied ex parte by originating process for a warrant under s 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Corporations Act).

The Liquidators relied upon affidavits of Nicholas Giasoumi (one of the Liquidators) sworn 28 March 2022 (initially affirmed and then sworn on 5 May 2022), 5 May 2022 and 12 May 2022 (the Giasoumi affidavits).

The Liquidators also filed submissions on 5 May 2022 and 12 May 2022 and a book of authorities.

Mr Adam Purton, of counsel, made submissions at the hearings of the originating process on 6 May 2022 and 16 May 2022.

BACKGROUND

The Company operated an accounting practice under the trading name ‘Oakwood Partners’ and was a registered tax agent.

The Company’s registered office and principal place of business was at Suite 34, Level 1, 1 Ricketts Road, Mount Waverley (the Premises). Pinia Investment Holdings Pty Ltd (Pinia) owns the Premises. Pinia leased the Premises to the Company. Pinia’s registered office and principal place of business are the Premises. Mr Delis is the sole director and secretary of Pinia.

The sole director and shareholder of the Company is Oona Yang (Ms Yang). The secretary of the Company is Peter Delis. He is also a former director and member.

An accounting practice trading under the name ‘Oakwood Partners’ continues to trade from the Premises.

On or about 11 February 2020, the Company purchased a server described as a ‘Asustor 4-Bay NAS with 4 x 2T Samsung SSD’ (the Server). In February 2020, the Company paid for the Server and certain associated services, including ‘Onsite Tech Service’. Since that time and until the appointment of the Liquidators, the Server was used in the Company’s business and was the Company’s primary memory and back-up system.

In about early December 2021, Mr Delis denied Ms Yang remote access to…

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 Oakwood Partners 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: [2022] VSC 338
Decision Date: 20 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The liquidators of Oakwood Partners, a company in liquidation, sought an ex parte warrant under section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to compel certain individuals to provide information. The application was brought before the court, which was tasked with determining whether it was satisfied of the necessary conditions for issuing such a warrant. The individuals in question were alleged to have information relevant to the liquidators' investigation into the company's affairs.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether it was satisfied that the application met the criteria under section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine if there were reasonable grounds to believe that the information held by the individuals was relevant to the liquidators' investigation and if it was likely to be destroyed or concealed without the issuance of a warrant. The court also considered the conditions under which the warrant should be issued, including any undertakings that might be required.

In granting the application, the court found that it was satisfied with the evidence presented by the liquidators. The court was convinced that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the information was relevant and likely to be destroyed or concealed without a warrant. The court also outlined the conditions that would apply to the warrant, including the requirement for an undertaking as to damages. After considering these factors, the court issued the warrant as requested by the liquidators.

The final orders of the court included the issuance of the warrant, subject to the specified conditions. The individuals were required to provide the information sought by the liquidators, and the court emphasised the importance of compliance with the conditions attached to the warrant. The court also noted that the individuals had the right to seek review of the warrant's conditions if they believed them to be unduly onerous.

Orders