Rialto Sports Pty Limited v Cancer Care Associates Pty Limited; CCA Estates Pty Limited; Davjul Holdings Pty Limited; Armmam Pty Limited (No 2)

In *Rialto Sports Pty Limited v Cancer Care Associates Pty Limited; CCA Estates Pty Limited; Davjul Holdings Pty Limited; Armmam Pty Limited (No 2)*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an application for leave to proceed against a company under voluntary administration. Rialto Sports Pty Limited, the company in administration, opposed the applications brought by Cancer Care Associates Pty Limited and other related entities (the respondents). The respondents sought leave under section 440D of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth) to proceed with a motion to adopt a referee's report.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether to grant leave to the respondents to proceed with their motion, notwithstanding the moratorium on proceedings against Rialto Sports Pty Limited imposed by section 440D of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth). This required the Court to assess whether the respondents' claims could be adequately addressed through the proof of debt procedure and whether allowing the motion to proceed would likely distract the administrators from their statutory duties.

Gleeson JA granted leave to the respondents in each appeal to proceed with their notice of motion against Rialto Sports Pty Limited. The Court reasoned that the respondents' claims were not easily dealt with under the proof of debt procedure. However, to mitigate potential prejudice to the administration, leave was granted on the condition that the respondents could not take steps to enforce any judgment obtained in the appeals against Rialto Sports Pty Limited without further leave of the Court. The costs of each application were ordered to be the applicant's costs in the cause.