Vickers, in the matter of York Street Mezzanine Pty Ltd (in liq)

The case involved several liquidators of various companies, including York Street Mezzanine Pty Ltd, in their capacity as liquidators of several companies, seeking approval from the court for the entry into various deeds with other parties. The liquidators sought orders for the approval of the deeds, and for the apportionment of the proceeds from these deeds amongst the various companies. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) was also a party to the proceedings, having entered into the deeds with the liquidators and other parties.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the liquidators could rely on legal professional privilege to prevent the disclosure of certain legal advice and whether the court could approve the liquidators' entry into the deeds without their prior approval. The court also had to determine the apportionment of the proceeds from the deeds amongst the various companies.

The court held that the liquidators could rely on legal professional privilege to prevent the disclosure of certain legal advice. The court noted that the applications for judicial advice or directions by the court required to be brought under a legislative provision were not adversarial proceedings, and therefore, the usual consequences of an order made in adversarial proceedings did not apply. The court also held that the liquidators' entry into the deeds did not require their prior approval, and that the court could approve their entry into the deeds nunc pro tunc. Finally, the court held that the proceeds from the deeds should be apportioned amongst the various companies in accordance with the proposals set out in the liquidators' affidavit.

The court made several orders in relation to the liquidators' applications. The court extended the time for the liquidators to apply for the court's approval for their entry into the deeds, approved their entry into the deeds nunc pro tunc, and declared that their entry into the deeds was not invalid by reason of the lack of prior approval. The court also made orders in relation to the apportionment of the proceeds from the deeds amongst the various companies, and orders in relation to the confidentiality of certain documents and the publication of the proceedings.