The Court dismissed an application by a minority shareholder to remove and replace the liquidator of a solvent company in members' voluntary winding up, holding that the applicant failed to establish cause for removal where almost all criticisms were either unsubstantiated or related to a different entity (Rosales Investments) rather than the company in liquidation. The Court also refused to appoint a special purpose liquidator, holding that the applicant's bare assertions of willingness to fund investigations were insufficient without evidence of the scope and likely costs of proposed investigations, the terms of any funding agreement, evidence from the proposed appointee, or evidence that the applicant had the financial means to meet investigation costs — particularly where the applicant had herself sought further provision from the deceased's estate under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic). The Court confirmed that a liquidator's failure to fully explain the status of a winding up, while less than ideal, does not alone warrant removal, and that the appropriate remedy for inadequate access to information is an application under s 70-47 of the IPS rather than removal of the liquidator.
The full text is available to signed-in members.