Trevor, in the matter of Bell Group NV (in liq)

In the case of Trevor, in the matter of Bell Group NV (in liq), the applicants sought an extension of time to discharge examination summonses and orders to produce, an adjournment of the summonses, a stay of the orders to produce, and access to an affidavit filed in support of the originating process. The applicants were defendants in the consolidated proceedings COR 202 of 2014 and COR 208 of 2014, in which they were served with examination summonses and orders to produce on 27 May 2016. The summonses and orders were issued pursuant to an order made on 4 July 2016 by Gleeson J. The applicants argued that they needed more time to prepare their application to discharge the summonses and orders, and that the summonses should be adjourned and the orders to produce stayed pending the determination of their discharge application. The court was required to decide whether the applicants' application to extend time to discharge the summonses and orders should be granted, and whether the summonses should be adjourned and the orders to produce stayed pending the determination of the discharge application.

The court found that the applicants had not established that there were exceptional circumstances that justified extending the time to discharge the summonses and orders. The court noted that the applicants had been aware of the proceedings since 2014, and had had sufficient time to prepare their application to discharge the summonses and orders. The court also found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the summonses should be adjourned and the orders to produce stayed pending the determination of the discharge application. The court noted that the applicants had not provided any evidence to support their contention that they would suffer prejudice if the summonses were not adjourned and the orders to produce were not stayed. The court found that the applicants' application to extend time to discharge the summonses and orders should be dismissed, and that the summonses should not be adjourned and the orders to produce should not be stayed pending the determination of the discharge application.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the applicants' application to extend time to discharge the examination summonses and orders to produce, and to adjourn the summonses and stay the orders to produce pending the determination of the discharge application. The court found that the applicants had not established that there were exceptional circumstances that justified extending the time to discharge the summonses and orders, and that the applicants had not demonstrated that they would suffer prejudice if the summonses were not adjourned and the orders to produce were not stayed. The court noted that the applicants had been aware of the proceedings since 2014, and had had sufficient time to prepare their application to discharge the summonses and orders.