The Court held that the plaintiff lacked standing under s 90-20 of the IPS to seek relief under s 90-15 because she was not personally a creditor, shareholder, or officer of the company in liquidation — rather, her company Freefall held the shareholding — and any interlocutory costs orders in Freefall's favour were likely set off by final costs orders against both Freefall and the plaintiff. Even assuming standing, the Court found no threshold basis warranting an inquiry into the liquidator's conduct, holding that the complaints were unsubstantiated, reflected a misunderstanding of the ROCAP lodgement process and AAF funding procedures, and constituted an impermissible attempt to relitigate matters already determined in prior proceedings. The Court confirmed that Order 56 of the Victorian Rules (judicial review) does not apply to decisions of a liquidator, as a liquidator is not a judicial or public authority.
The full text is available to signed-in members.