Banerjee (Liquidator), in the matter of Coast to Coast Trading Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liq) [2026] FCA 375 (30 March 2026)

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

1. On 30 March 2026, I made orders granting leave for overseas service of an order for production. These are my reasons for making those orders.
2. The plaintiff, Mr Shumit Banerjee, is the liquidator of Coast to Coast Trading Pty Limited ('Coast to Coast Trading'). By an originating process dated 30 October 2025 he sought, among other things, an order for production directed to Barkley Trading (HK) Limited (BRN 70798152) ('Barkley Trading') under s 597(9) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the 'Act') and r‍30.34 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) ('FCR'). On 4‍ March‍ 2026, a registrar of this Court made an order for production directed to Barkley Trading. The liquidator now seeks leave under r‍ 10.44 of the FCR to serve the order for production on Barkley Trading in Hong Kong where its registered office is located.
3. Rule 10.44 of the FCR provides that documents other than an originating application may be served outside Australia with leave of the Court and such leave may be given with any directions that the Court considers appropriate. If leave is granted, r 10.46 of the FCR provides that the order need not be personally served so long as it is served in accordance with the law of the country in which service is effected which in this case is Hong Kong.
4. The liquidator's solicitor, Mr Marc Rossi, in his affidavit dated 16 December 2025, has addressed the laws of Hong Kong relating to service and the liquidator's proposed method of service. The Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters done at the Hague on 15 November 1965 (the 'Hague Convention') applies in Hong Kong. Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention does not interfere with the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad. Additionally, s‍827 of the Companies Ordinance (HK) provides that a document may be served on a company by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, the company's registered office. The liquidator proposes to serve the order for production by international registered post to the registered office of Barkley Trading with return receipt.
5. Leave for service out should be granted. The liquidator explains in his affidavit dated 30 October 2025 that the categories of documents he seeks to be produced by Barkley Trading are directed to facilitating the enquiries which he intends to make of the affairs of Coast to Coast Trading. A registrar of this Court was satisfied on the evidence before her that an order for production should be made. I need not reexamine that determination. It is appropriate that the liquidator should have the benefit of that order: Yeo (Liquidator), in the matter of ACN 152 259 839 Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] FCA 1630 at [15] per Button J; Bredenkamp (Liquidator), in the matter of Ultima United Limited (in liq) [2025] FCA 1350 at [28] per Banks-Smith J.
6. I have considered the principle of comity and I am satisfied that it does not preclude the grant of leave in this case. This is because the liquidator proposes to serve the order for production in accordance with the Hague Convention to which Hong Kong has acceded through the United Kingdom then China: Clifton (Liquidator), in the matter of Solar Shop Australia Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2014] FCA 891 at [11]- [12] per White‍J. Further, s‍597(9) of the Act confers powers on the liquidator similar to ss 596A and 596B of the Act which Parliament intended to have extraterritorial effect: Waller v Freehills [2009] FCAFC 89; 177 FCR 507 at [53]- [57], [61], [96] per Finn, Dowsett and Siopis JJ; Krejci in his capacity as liquidator of Myoora Land Pty Ltd (in liq) v Myoora Land Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 620 at [36] per Rares J.
7. For those reasons, I ordered that leave be granted under r 10.44 of the FCR for the order for production dated 4 March 2026 to be served outside of Australia. To allow time for service to be effected, I also ordered that this leave extend to any further order of the Court varying the date for production in the order made on 4 March 2026.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Perram.