Krejci in his capacity as liquidator of Myoora Land Pty Ltd (in liq) v Myoora Land Pty Ltd

STEWART J: 1 The plaintiffs are the liquidators of Sargon Capital Pty Ltd. On 20 January 2023, they obtained orders from a Registrar of the Court under ss 596A and 596B of the Corporations Act 2021 (Cth) for the issue of summonses for examination and, in some cases, orders for production against certain individuals. Those individuals include the following: (1) Anthony Owen; (2) Edward Paul Wasserman; (3) Robert John Rankin; (4) Aron Ping D'Souza; and (5) Charles Matthew Danzeisen. 2 On 16 February 2023, Cheeseman J made orders authorising the personal service of summonses for examination and orders for production on each of those individuals overseas, save for Mr D'Souza who was at that time believed to be in Australia. See McCabe, in the matter of Sargon Capital Pty Limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) [2023] FCA 112. 3 The liquidators have made various attempts at personal service overseas on Messrs Owen, Wasserman, Rankin and Danzeisen, but they have failed save in respect of Mr Danzeisen. Personal service was effected on him in West Hollywood, California, on 22 March 2023. I am satisfied on the evidence that the liquidators have made all reasonable attempts to achieve personal service on Messrs Owen, Wasserman and Rankin. In respect of Messrs Owen and Wasserman, that was in the United States of America, and in respect of Mr Rankin it was in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 4 The liquidators have also subsequently learned that Mr D'Souza is not in Australia and they have ascertained an address for him in Manchester, United Kingdom. 5 Subsequent to the orders on 16 February 2023, there have also been orders by a Registrar adjourning the examinations and, in some cases, amending the orders for production, with the result that the summonses for examination and orders for production in their original form as authorised for service overseas by Cheeseman J have in effect changed. 6 In the result, the liquidators now seek orders pursuant to r 10.44 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for service of summonses for examination and, where applicable, orders for production other than by personal service on Messrs Owen and Wasserman in the United States and Messrs Rankin and D'Souza in the United Kingdom. They also seek orders for the service of the amended summons for examination on Mr Danzeisen. 7 I do not doubt that the Court has the power to authorise the service that is sought, and I am satisfied as to the justification for the methods of service other than personal service and that they are available and appropriate under the applicable rules. However, it is necessary to exercise caution in making orders for service out of the jurisdiction of processes of the court on persons not otherwise subject to the Court's jurisdiction as impinging on a foreign state's sovereignty: Krejci in his capacity as liquidator of Myoora Land Pty Ltd (in liq) v Myoora Land Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 620 at [31] per Rares J. There are also considerations with regard to the difficulty of enforcing any such processes, including the examination summonses and orders for production in this case: Stemcor (A/sia) Pty Ltd v Oceanwave Line SA [2004] FCA 391 at [12]-[13] per Allsop J. 8 In those circumstances, it is necessary to have close regard to what connection there is between the person sought to be summoned and the company's examinable affairs: Myoora at [32] citing Waller v Freehills [2009] FCAFC 89; 177 FCR 507 at [61]. 9 In the present case, each of the people subject to the orders that are sought was a director of the company. Four of them were directors at a time that makes them susceptible to claims for insolvent trading. Those are the claims that the liquidators are investigating by the examinations that they intend holding. The fifth person, Mr Danzeisen, ceased to be a director more than three years prior to the relevant date. However, as a former director it is probable that he may have knowledge that will bear on the liquidators' investigations. For obvious reasons, I do not wish to go into these matters in any particular detail. The short point is that I am satisfied that the liquidators' have established sufficient justification for the examinations in respect of each of the people concerned, and that each was a director of the company, being an Australian registered company. Therefore, each was subject to the laws of Australia in the conduct of their directorships. Moreover, the evidence shows that the vast majority, if not all, the creditors of the company are Australian. 10 In those circumstances, I am satisfied that there is more than adequate connection between the people sought to be examined and this jurisdiction, including the subject matter of the proposed examinations. 11 I am therefore satisfied that appropriate orders should be made. I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Stewart.