Federal Court of Australia

Law Capital Pty Ltd v Dixon, in the matter of Accident Claims Lawyers Pty Ltd (Subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2025] FCA 762

ORDERS

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

1.    The parties have agreed on a form of a Deed of Confidentiality which requires that the Information (as defined in the plaintiff’s Originating Process) be kept confidential in accordance with the terms of that Deed.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

2.    Pursuant to s 70-90 of Schedule 2 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations), Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the defendant produce and/or provide to the Plaintiff within 7 days of the date of these orders, the Information, as defined in Annexure A to the Originating Process filed 15 April 2025, with the exception of the information that details the manner of settlement.

3.    The proceedings otherwise be dismissed.

4.    The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs as agreed or assessed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript

JACKMAN J:

1    In these proceedings, the plaintiff applied for orders pursuant to s 70-90 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPS), being Sch 2 to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for the production of material which had been requested by the plaintiff from the defendant, as deed administrator of the defendant company (the Company). The parties have agreed on the production of material sought by the plaintiff, with two relatively minor qualifications, one relating to confidentiality, and the other relating to information in relation to the manner of settlement of the various cases in question. The parties are to be commended on having reached an agreed outcome. The only outstanding issue is as to costs.

2    In my view, the plaintiff is entitled to an order for costs. First, it has achieved substantive success in the proceedings and had to approach the Court in order to achieve that success. Second, there are aspects of the defendant's conduct of the matter which I regard as unreasonable and unsatisfactory.

3    On 2 August 2024, the plaintiff made a request to the defendant for certain information. No response was received, and a further request was sent on 12 August 2024. On 7 October 2024, the defendant's solicitor responded with some of the requested information.

4    After the exchange of further correspondence, the plaintiff's solicitor identified in a letter of 28 February 2025, the information which remained outstanding. On 21 March 2025, the defendant's solicitor pointed out that control of the Company had reverted to the Company's directors under the Deed of Company Arrangement, and the deed administrator was therefore reliant on the Company's directors for the information requested. No further information or material was received from the defendant.

5    Accordingly, these proceedings were commenced on 15 April 2025.

6    No satisfactory explanation has been provided for the defendant's delays in providing the information sought. Mr Dixon has been the deed administrator since 10 July 2024, with power under clause 9.2 of the Deed of Company Arrangement to require information from the Company required for the performance of his duties as deed administrator. This is a dispute which could, and should, have been avoided by a prompt and diligent response by the defendant.

7    Questions of confidentiality, from the defendant's perspective, should not have stood in the way of such a resolution without the need for litigation. In fact, it was the plaintiff itself which took the initiative in negotiations for a confidentiality regime which ultimately bore fruit.

8    For those reasons, in my view, the appropriate order is that the defendant pay the costs of the plaintiff as agreed or assessed.

Associate:

Dated:    4 July 2025