Solomon & Ors v Corporate Affairs Commission

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application for special leave to appeal. The applicants, Transphere Pty Limited, Eddie Solomon Pty Limited, Eddie Solomon Bank & Trust Corporation (West Indies), Eddie Solomon Banking, Eddie Solomon Holdings Inc, and Northland Finance Limited, sought to challenge decisions made by lower courts. The respondents were the Corporate Affairs Commission and Alexander Robert Mackay. Mr. Eddie Solomon, representing himself and his wife, sought to appear on behalf of the corporate applicants, arguing that the trial and appeal courts had erred in their application of section 573 of the Companies Code regarding the appointment of a receiver and in their handling of separate matters within the proceedings.

The primary legal issues before the High Court revolved around the applicants' right to self-representation in an application for special leave, particularly when the applicants were corporate entities. Furthermore, the court was required to consider the merits of the applicants' contention that the lower courts had erred in appointing a receiver under section 573 of the Companies Code and in their procedural handling of the case. Mr. Solomon also raised the issue of the receiver's control over assets, arguing that these assets, which were intermingled with those of creditors, should not be used to fund legal representation for himself and his wife, but rather should be directed towards creditors.

Mason CJ noted that the rules of the High Court generally require applications for special leave to be presented by counsel. Mr. Solomon indicated he was unaware of this rule and requested an adjournment to obtain legal representation, explaining that his inability to secure representation stemmed from the receiver's control over his assets and income for approximately nine years. He stated a preference for the receiver to use available funds for creditors rather than for legal fees. The Chief Justice also pointed out that the court could not direct the receiver to release assets under their control for Mr. Solomon's legal representation, given the intermingling of his assets with those of creditors.