Weston in his capacity as liquidator of Starcom Group Pty Ltd (in liq) v Rajan

The case of Weston in his capacity as liquidator of Starcom Group Pty Ltd (in liq) v Rajan was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The central dispute involved the adoption of a referee's report concerning the solvency status of Starcom during a specified period, specifically whether Starcom was insolvent prior to a deferred payment arrangement. The defendants contested the referee's findings, arguing that the report inaccurately represented the duration of a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) for another entity, Pisces Group, and raised questions about the fundraising activities of Pisces Group.

The court was tasked with determining whether the referee's report should be adopted in its entirety, given the defendants' objections. The defendants argued that the referee's conclusions regarding the DOCA's duration and the fundraising activities of Pisces Group were incorrect and that these errors undermined the report's reliability. However, the court found that the defendants had not identified any errors in the referee's methodology, calculations, or reasoning. The court noted that the defendants' contention about the DOCA's duration lacked supporting evidence and was contradicted by other documents in the case. Additionally, the court considered that the one-month discrepancy in the DOCA's duration was immaterial given that Starcom was already insolvent by March 2011. Regarding the fundraising activities, the court found that the defendants' claims were unsupported by evidence and did not provide a basis to question the referee's findings.

The court concluded that the referee's report should be adopted in its entirety, as the defendants had not presented a proper basis for rejecting it. The court was satisfied that the referee's approach was thorough and analytical, and the defendants had not raised any questions of law or the application of legal standards to established facts. Consequently, the court ordered the adoption of the referee's report and reserved the costs arising from the defendants' opposition to the adoption, noting that these costs would be costs in the cause if no other order was made.