Singleton re Original Displays (Australia) Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 459

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Singleton re Original Displays (Australia) Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 459 HEARING DATE(S) : 21 May 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 21 May 2003 JURISDICTION: Equity JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J DECISION : Orders requiring information to be provided on affidavit made as asked.

CATCHWORDS : CORPORATIONS [318] - Supervision, regulation and correction - Examinations - Scope of examination - Matters for inquiry - To establish whether if litigation were successful money or property may be recoverable. LEGISLATION CITED : Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 597A Duke Group Limited (in liq) v The Corporations Law (SA); Gerah Imports Pty Limited v The Duke Group Limited (in liq) (1994) 68 ALJR 196; 119 ALR 401 CASES CITED : Re Chircan Holdings [2002] NSWSC 988 Sherlock v Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd (1996) 22 ACSR 16 PARTIES : Neil Singleton (P) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2815/03 COUNSEL : S Duke, Solicitor (P) SOLICITORS : McCabe Terrill (P)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

WEDNESDAY, 21 MAY 2003

2815/03 NEIL SINGLETON re ORIGINAL DISPLAYS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED (DEREGISTERED COMPANY) (FORMERLY ACN 001 988 138) JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application for an order under s 597A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that one Adrian Douglas Cran, a former administrator and liquidator of the company, file an affidavit setting out certain information. There is a somewhat confusing description of the plaintiff. It would seem that the company is specified as the plaintiff. This is incorrect. However, Neil Singleton, whose name is also mentioned in that description, being the now liquidator of the company, is an eligible applicant for the purposes of s 597A. I shall order an amendment of the originating process to make it plain that Mr Singleton is the plaintiff. 2 At one stage I had some doubt as to whether various of the orders sought in the document by reference to which I now propose to make orders were justified by the section. However, a little consideration makes it plain to me that those orders are appropriate: see Duke Group Limited (in liq) v The Corporations Law (SA); Gerah Imports Pty Limited v The Duke Group Limited (in liq) (1994) 68 ALJR 196; 119 ALR 401 per Dawson J at 198; 404; and see also Sherlock v Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd (1996) 22 ACSR 16 at 17 – 18 per Mahoney P; Re Chircan Holdings [2002] NSWSC 988 at [22] per Barrett J. In the Duke Corporation case, Dawson J, sitting as a single Justice of the High Court, made it plain in relation to a company's rights: "… that an examination of those rights under the relevant provisions was not confined to their existence but extended to their expenditure and value. Plainly, the latter are matters of considerable moment to the liquidator of a corporation in pursuing the assets of a corporation in an economical and efficient manner."