The applicants were 2 of 29 respondents to a “mothership” unfair preferences claim brought by a liquidator. They did not give the liquidator a positive indication that they consented to a finding of insolvency and they did not appear at the hearing to determine the question of insolvency. A costs order was made against the applicants in their absence. Issues were raised about what the directions regime had required of them and whether correspondence from the liquidator’s solicitors had given sufficient warning that a costs order would be sought against them, even in the absence of positive resistance to a finding of insolvency. Martin J refused an application to set aside the order on the basis that it was made in the applicants’ absence, however his Honour granted leave to appeal.
Shane Monks appeared for the applicant/sixteenth respondent, instructed by Patane Lawyers.
The judgment is published here.
