University of Western Australia v Gray (No 30)

The case of University of Western Australia v Gray (No 30) involves the University of Western Australia and several respondents, including Cancer Research Institute (CRI) and its receiver, Mr Mark Anthony Conlan. The primary dispute revolves around the termination of Mr Conlan's appointment as the receiver and manager of CRI, and the subsequent winding up of CRI's affairs. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the court-appointed receiver, Mr Conlan, should be discharged from his role, and if so, under what conditions. The court was required to consider the interests of the creditors, the public interest, and whether the objectives of the receivership had been achieved. Additionally, the court had to determine if any unresolved claims or issues remained that might necessitate the continuation of the receivership.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that a receiver appointed by the court can only be discharged by an order from the court itself. The court noted that Mr Conlan's appointment as receiver did not include provisions for his discharge, hence the necessity of applying to the court for dismissal. The court considered various factors in deciding whether to terminate the receivership, including the interests of creditors, the public interest, the achievement of the receivership's objectives, and any unresolved claims. In this case, the court found that the receivership should be terminated as it aligned with the Approved Settlement Terms, facilitated the transfer of assets to a charitable trust for cancer research, and Mr Conlan had achieved the objectives of his appointment. The court also noted that there were no significant unresolved claims against CRI.

The court made several orders to facilitate the transition from receivership to liquidation. These orders included the lodging of a final report by Mr Conlan, the passing of the receiver’s final account of costs and expenses, the service of the receiver’s application documents on each party, the discharge of Mr Conlan as receiver, and the release of Mr Conlan and his firm from any liability arising from the receivership. Additionally, the court allowed Mr Conlan to retain possession of CRI’s remaining property in his capacity as liquidator and directed that any approved costs and expenses of the receivership be paid from CRI’s remaining property.