Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kimberley Diamonds Ltd v Arnautovic [2017] FCAFC 91 Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal: Kimberley Diamonds Ltd, in the matter of Kimberley Diamond Company Pty Ltd (in liq) [2016] FCA 1016
File number: NSD 1693 of 2016
Judges: FOSTER, WIGNEY AND MARKOVIC JJ
Date of judgment: 6 June 2017
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – application for leave to appeal from stay of examination summons – liquidator applied to primary judge to discharge, set aside or stay summons for examination under s 596A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) as abuse of process – whether examination summons an abuse of process – construction of s 596A
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 179 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 9, 53, 57A(1), 58AA, 447E, 536 (repealed), 596A, 596B, 596C, 596D, 596F, 597, 597B Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 24(1A) Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth), sch 2 Explanatory Memorandum, Corporate Law Reform Bill 1992 (Cth) Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth), rr 11.3, 11.5
Cases cited: Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256 Carter v Gardner (2003) 130 FCR 99 Evans v Wainter (2005) 145 FCR 176 Hall v Poolman (2009) 75 NSWLR 99 Honest Remark Pty Ltd v Allstate Explorations NL [2006] NSWSC 735 Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529 Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23 Macchia v Nilant (2001) 110 FCR 101 Meteyard v Love (2005) 65 NSWLR 36 Moore v Inglis (1976) 9 ALR 509 New Zealand Steel (Australia) Pty Ltd v Burton (1994) 13 ACSR 610 O'Shane v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd (2013) 85 NSWLR 698 Re Joe and Joe Developments [2014] NSWSC 1444 Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19 Rogers v R (1994) 181 CLR 251 Sydlow Pty Ltd (in Liq) v TG Kotselas Pty Ltd (1996) 65 FCR 234 The Owners of the Ship "Shin Kobe Maru" v Empire Shipping Company Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404 Tyne (Trustee) v UBS AG (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 5 Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509 Wong v Silkfield Pty Limited (1999) 199 CLR 255
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate