Liquidators can rest assured that courts are reluctant to interfere in their commercial judgments or permit liquidators to be personally exposed to mandatory examinations under s596A Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).
In Kimberley Diamonds Limited, in the matter of Kimberley Diamond Company Pty Limited (In Liq)  FCA 1016 (Kimberley Diamonds), the Federal Court ordered a stay of an examination summons, issued under section s596A of the Act to examine a liquidator about the sale of a business, as an abuse of process.
Administrators appointed to Kimberley Diamond Company (KDC), a subsidiary of Kimberley Diamonds Limited (KDL), commenced a campaign for the sale of a diamond mining business operated by KDC. That campaign was unsuccessful, resulting in KDC being put into liquidation and the disclaimer of KDC’s mining lease by the liquidators under s568 of the Act.
On the basis of KDL’s suspicion that the liquidators of KDC had not properly performed their duties in both their conduct of the sales and marketing process and their disclaimer of the mining lease, KDL (as sole shareholder of KDC) applied under ss596A and 597(7) of the Act and rule 30.34 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to conduct a public examination of the liquidators, and for an order for production of documents.
Whilst accepting that s596A is sufficiently broad to allow an examination of a liquidator, the liquidators challenged the summons as an abuse of process. The liquidators’ challenge comprised the following limbs:
Gleeson J noted the categories for abuse of process are not closed but fall generally within three categories, namely that the use of the Court’s procedures would be:
Gleeson J summarised the key principles regarding the special nature of a liquidator’s office as a fiduciary, officer of the company and an officer of the Court, and the established requirement for the court’s leave before allowing a liquidator to be the subject of proceedings (including an inquiry under s536 of the Act, which enables the court to examine a liquidator about the conduct of a winding up). Her Honour also referred to numerous authorities for the principles that, first, a liquidator owes no duty to obtain the best possible price for the company’s assets and, secondly, the court will not interfere with a liquidator’s commercial judgments in the absence of any evidence of a lack of good faith or a breach of duty.
Consequently, her Honour held that given the examination summons represented a challenge to the integrity of the liquidation of KDC, it was necessary for KDL to provide justification for that challenge, namely, evidence that the examination would fulfill the purpose of s596A by benefiting the company, its creditors or members, or the public generally (Kimberley Diamonds at -).
In this regard, her Honour noted there was no evidence of the following matters:
Given those circumstances, her Honour was not satisfied that KDL had met the evidentiary threshold required to demonstrate the necessity for or practical utility of a mandatory examination of the liquidators, which would involve a substantial intrusion into the conduct of the liquidation. Consequently, her Honour held that the examination summons was an abuse of process and ought to be stayed.
The decision in Kimberley Diamonds serves as a reassurance to liquidators that the courts remain reluctant to either interfere in liquidators’ commercial judgments or permit liquidators to be personally exposed to mandatory examinations under s596A. Such intrusions into the conduct of a liquidation will only be permitted where there is significant and cogent evidence of impropriety, misconduct or manifest unreasonableness on the part of the liquidator.
Be the first to receive the latest articles, news and publications.
A recent Federal Court decision provides a useful distillation of the key principles that apply to unreasonable director-related transactions under s 588FDA of the Corporations Act.
A Federal Court decision, handed down on Friday, is a blunt reminder that the statutory limitation period in section 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) needs to be adhered to strictly, and...
In this decision, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of NSW considered the interplay between the priority regimes under ss 556 and 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) in resolving a...