Anthony Messina appeared for the Interested Person in the first, second and third interlocutory applications, instructed by Sasha Legal.
In summary, the issue was whether the examination summonses issued pursuant to s 596A and s 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) should be set aside because of material non-disclosure, the discretion under s 596B, or abuse of process. The Court ultimately held that all the s 596B examination summonses (except for Mr van Staden) and all the orders for productions will be set aside.
In coming to her decisions, Justice Wheatley found there had been material non-disclosure by the plaintiff and HWLE parties, after concluding that the hearing had been ex parte. Failing to find exceptional circumstances, Her Honour exercised her discretion to set aside the s 596B summonses. Her Honour similarly exercised her discretion upon finding there was no practical utility or sufficient justification to examine the parties. Lastly, in considering the s 596A summons, Her Honour found that there was no abuse of process as there had been no material non-disclosure, the plaintiff was suitable to conduct examinations with the help of the Court, and matters which had previously been decided were excluded from examination.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
