Court Rejects ASIC’s Application for an Inquiry into a Liquidator's Conduct

Articles Written by Joseph Scarcella (Partner), Henry Materne-Smith


The NSW Supreme Court has reaffirmed the criteria for a Court to inquire into a liquidator’s conduct.[1] It is necessary to show that there is at least a ‘well-based suspicion’ indicating a need for further investigation. ‘Mere wondering’ is not enough.

In exercising its discretion, a Court will also consider the nature and gravity of the allegations against the liquidator, delays in seeking an inquiry, the utility of an inquiry and the existence of alternative remedies. 


This latest guidance came out of ASIC’s unsuccessful attempt to obtain an order for an inquiry into the conduct of Andrew Wily and David Hurst during their liquidation of a number of labour hire companies, some in 2007 and others in 2009.

Joseph Scarcella of JWS represented Mr Hurst in the proceedings, in respect of whom the Court found the prospect of establishing the need for an inquiry was ‘remote in the extreme’.

ASIC alleged that the companies being liquidated gave rise to questions of possible conflicts of interest, phoenixing and potential shadow directors. ASIC therefore sought an inquiry under the now repealed s536 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) into whether Mr Wily and Mr Hurst had acted to the standard expected of reasonably competent liquidators with respect to:

  • avoiding and disclosing conflicts of interest;
  • reporting to ASIC matters required by s533 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); and
  • adequately performing their duties and functions.

These inquiry powers are now conferred by the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations).

The Court dismissed ASIC’s application with costs, labelling ASIC’s prospects of establishing unfitness of the liquidators as ‘doubtful in the extreme’.

Conflicts of interest

The Court found that there was no well-based suspicion of a conflict of interest where a liquidator of certain companies had previously been the liquidator of other companies sharing commonalities, such as carrying on similar businesses, sharing similar directors, being treated as a group and being referred to the liquidators by a common referrer. Additionally, even if there was a potential conflict, it would not require a liquidator to decline an appointment, or disclose common directors as relevant relationships.  Readers will note that one of the main concerns often expressed by regulators is the fact that multiple external administrations are referred to liquidators from a single source. That, it appears, is not sufficient to ground a reasonable apprehension of a potential conflict of interest.

Reporting obligations under s533 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

The Court also said that s533 did not require liquidators to report that a company may have shadow directors. Further, the mere fact that when a company goes into liquidation, another with the same ownership and directors commences to provide the same services to the same customers does not amount to ‘illegal phoenixing’.  In any event the Court found that Mr Hurst had lodged many s533 reports.

More limited obligations for liquidators of asset-less companies

Finally, the Court reaffirmed that the level of inquiry required of a liquidator is more limited when the company in liquidation has no available assets. 

It followed that the Court identified no well-based suspicions regarding Mr Wily and Mr Hurst’s conduct. In any event, the Court would have declined to order an inquiry in light of discretionary factors, including the fact that Mr Wily was no longer a registered liquidator and Mr Hurst had conducted practice for almost a decade since the alleged conduct without incident or being the subject of any other complaint or disciplinary procedures.

Key takeaways

Liquidators have been subject to significant regulatory and judicial criticism of late. This decision breathes an air of commercial reality into how the Courts view a liquidator’s business and function. It establishes that the Courts are not eager to take action without a well-grounded suspicion of potential wrongdoing.


[1] Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Wily & Hurst [2019] NSWSC 521

Click here to read the full decision.

Important Disclaimer: The material contained in this article is comment of a general nature only and is not and nor is it intended to be advice on any specific professional matter. In that the effectiveness or accuracy of any professional advice depends upon the particular circumstances of each case, neither the firm nor any individual author accepts any responsibility whatsoever for any acts or omissions resulting from reliance upon the content of any articles. Before acting on the basis of any material contained in this publication, we recommend that you consult your professional adviser. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation (Australia-wide except in Tasmania).