Michael May (led by John McKenna KC, with Lauren Gamble) represented the Respondents, instructed by Thynne + Macartney.
The applicants sought leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision refusing to order an inquiry into the conduct of a receiver and manager. A dispute had arisen between two property developers over a development at Park Ridge, Queensland. Ultimate Investment Portfolio Pty Ltd, associated with one developer, lent over $8 million to GGPG Pty Ltd. When GGPG defaulted, Ultimate appointed Mr Watters as receiver and manager.
The principal issue was whether the primary judge applied the wrong test under s 423(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in refusing to order an inquiry into the applicants’ complaints. Because an order refusing an inquiry was interlocutory, the applicants required leave to appeal. They therefore had to establish both sufficient doubt about the primary judge’s decision and substantial injustice if leave were refused. The Court restated the settled s 423 principles and found no error on any of the critical grounds. Although it was unnecessary to decide, the Court would also have refused leave for want of substantial injustice.
The amended application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
