The workings of the NSW Supreme Court Registry at times mystify, and it’s not only iNO that thinks so.
With proceedings set to commence next month, lawyers for Worrells partner Chris Darin needed access to a trove of documents.
That material had been disgorged in response to notices to produce Darin issued when conducting public examinations of individuals associated with Portman Securities Pty Ltd, a curious property player placed into liquidation in September 2021 after an odd three-in-a-line deal fell over courtesy of the NSW Government’s use of compulsory acquisition powers.
Darin was appointed liquidator by the court upon application by a creditor but took some time to get his hands on money to fund public examinations.
Clearly however they’ve been fruitful with a five day trial set down for next month.
Ahead of the hearing Darin’s lawyers Maddocks need to get the documents prepared for hearing but were told when they contacted the Registry that there was no access without an order of the court.
These were documents divulged in response to notices to produce that had been utilised extensively by Maddocks partner Danielle Funston, her team and counsel Emma Beechey during the public examinations. Yet all of a sudden Registry was telling them they couldn’t have them for the trial.
iNO asked a court regular if Registry might have been spooked by one of the parties ordered to disgorge.
“When it’s a question of either conspiracy or stupidity always suspect the latter,” they replied.
When Darin’s counsel Steven Golledge brought the issue before Corporations List judge Ashley Black on Monday this week his honour was moved to declare that “I have not seen an application of this nature before”.
Describing the idea that the liquidator’s legal team, which had consulted the material extensively during the public examinations, should be forced to apply to the court to access it again as “perverse”, his honour made the orders sought, orders which went unopposed by counsel for the subpoena recipients.
We asked the Supreme Court for comment but no response had been received as at time of publication.
Normally in the past before the Liquidator could access documents produced in answer to order for production to the Court, an Order for access would have been given. The system must have changed.