BL & GY International Co Pty Ltd v Hypec Electronics Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2003] NSWSC 1226

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : BL & GY International Co Pty Ltd v Hypec Electronics Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2003] NSWSC 1226 HEARING DATE(S) : 10 December 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 December 2003 JURISDICTION: Equity JUDGMENT OF : Campbell J DECISION : Liquidator directed, until further order, to make no further intervention in or application to Family Court in identified proceedings

CATCHWORDS : CORPORATIONS - winding up - liquidator seeking to intervene in Family Court dispute - no proper purpose of advancing liquidation achieved by such intervention LEGISLATION CITED : Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) CASES CITED : BL & GY International Company Limited v Hypec Electronics Pty Limited; Colin Anthony Mead v David Patrick Watson (as liquidator of Hypec Electronics Pty Ltd in liquidation) & Ors [2000] NSWSC 705 Hypec Electronics Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Mead [2003] NSWSC 934 PARTIES : BL & GY International Company Limited - Plaintiff Hypec Electronics Pty Ltd (in liq) - Defendant FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1933/01 K Ma, solicitor - Plaintiff COUNSEL : P H Greenwood SC; T J Morahan - Liquidator of Defendant D Fagan SC; V Bedrossian - for Colin Mead Ma & Co - Plaintiff SOLICITORS : A R Conolly & Company - Liquidator of Defendant Etheringtons - for Colin Mead

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION EQUITY LIST

CAMPBELL J

WEDNESDAY 10 DECEMBER 2003

1933/01 BL & GY INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED v HYPEC ELECTRONICS PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: I gave judgment in this matter on 3 November 2003 (Hypec Electronics Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Mead [2003] NSWSC 934). Orders were made on 25 November 2003. The judgment which I gave on 3 November 2003 related to two separate proceedings, namely, proceedings 1268/02 and 1933/01. Proceedings 1933/01 are the winding up proceedings concerning Hypec Electronics Pty Ltd (In Liquidation). The orders which I made on 25 November 2003 granted to the parties liberty to apply on fourteen day's notice in writing. 2 The matter has been brought back before me with some urgency today, and with less than fourteen day's notice. The shortness of notice is not a matter about which any party complains, however. The application which is made is an application which is made by Mr Mead, in proceedings 1933/01. 3 The orders which he seeks today is an order set out in paragraph 1 of short minutes of order which I will initial and date today and place with the papers. 4 The application is for an order or direction under section 477(6), Corporations Act 2001, directing the liquidator of Hypec to: "1.1 Make no further intervention in or application in Family Court proceedings No. SY3359 of 1997 (Mead v Mead) and 1.2 Make no further representation or submission to the Family Court to the effect that in connection with Mr Mead's application heard in that Court on 25 and 26 October 2001 he failed to disclose to the Family Court material facts relating to any claim of Hypec Electronics Pty Ltd (in liq) to the Four Properties the subject of the orders of the Family Court made 2 November 2001. 5 Section 477(6), Corporations Act 2001 provides: "The exercise by the liquidator of the powers conferred by this section is subject to the control of the Court, and any creditor or contributory, or ASIC, may apply to the Court with respect to any exercise or proposed exercise of any of those powers."