Wilden Pty Ltd v Green [No 6]

Wilden Pty Ltd was the liquidator of Green, seeking to enforce the Court of Appeal's orders from 2009. The primary dispute was over the entitlement to allowances in an accounting process, specifically regarding the Summerfield loans. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division. The court was tasked with determining whether the liquidator, Wilden, was entitled to 'just allowances' in respect of the Summerfield loans, and whether the registrar's report in this matter was properly adopted.

The key legal issue was the proper construction and application of the Court of Appeal's orders from 2009, particularly in relation to the allowances permitted in the accounting process. The court had to consider whether the liquidator was entitled to allowances beyond those expressly provided for in the orders, and whether the registrar's decision not to require payment or allow a set-off in respect of the Summerfield loans was reasonable. The court also needed to determine whether the liquidator's claim for broader allowances had merit, and whether the registrar's report was acceptable.

The court held that the liquidator's claim for 'just allowances' in respect of the Summerfield loans was without merit. Firstly, the orders expressly provided for specific allowances related to the repurchase of units in the Summerfield Trust, and no other allowances were permitted. Secondly, the court found that it could not have been the intention of the 2009 Court of Appeal orders that the registrar conduct a fresh trial of unpleaded issues. The court further found that the liquidator had not demonstrated that the registrar's decision was manifestly unreasonable or based on any other improper grounds. The court concluded that the registrar's report was properly adopted and the liquidator's claim for broader allowances was rejected.

The court ordered that the registrar's report be adopted, and that the liquidator's claim for allowances in respect of the Summerfield loans be dismissed. The court found that there were no grounds to interfere with the registrar's decision, and the orders from 2009 were to be enforced as they stood.