1A liquidator seeking an extension under s 588FF(3)(b) must provide an adequate explanation for delay across the entire limitation period; formulaic requests for funding in creditor reports and reliance on a putative creditor's unassessed contentions, without the liquidator independently forming even a preliminary view that there is reason to inquire, are insufficient to discharge the onus.
2Presumptive prejudice to interested parties from the prolongation of uncertainty is a real and weighty factor, particularly where receivers are actively enforcing securities and have incurred substantial costs; the absence of specific prejudice evidence does not negate this, and a submission that no prejudice arises if funding never materialises is rejected.
3While a shelf order under s 588FF(3)(b) may be made without specifying particular transactions (per Fortress), the court retains a broad discretion and will refuse such an order where the liquidator has effectively outsourced investigation to a third party, committed to the application before receiving the third party's analysis, and cannot articulate any basis for inquiry from his own assessment.
