Login
Post versus email: When Supreme Court rules can be bent
In the process of deregistering the Australasian Barrister Chambers, a director took issue with the way he was informed of the court’s decision.
Naomi Neilson
When David Sampson, liquidator for Australasian Barrister Chambers, requested that he be released from his role and the company deregistered, Justice Kelly Rees said he must pass on the draft judgement to contributors. The order was for post, he did so by email.
The rule aims to ensure that the liquidator terminates all liability in respect of any act done or default made by him in the administration of the affairs of the company, with appropriate time for creditors and contributors to respond with a statement if need be.
Having received the email, director and shareholder Derek Minus responded to the court with a submission that advised creditors of the company had a complaint over the actions of Mr Sampson “and objection to his request for an order”, pursuant to how it was sent.
Mr Minus’ submission addressed a number of topics, with the primary one being that the rule 7.5(6) was not adhered to. Justice Rees said this submission was too “subtly” made.
Second, he took issue that the court should “otherwise order” that, under the rule, the file was not addressed correctly and there were several errors therein. Mr Minus then had an issue with the “strictness of the notification procedures in the rules”.
So, where did the court stand on the issue of post versus email? Justice Rees said it was the court’s decision to “dispense with any requirement of rules of court” if it is satisfied the appropriate measures had still taken place “in the circumstances of the case”.
Justice Rees said she did not think there was much to be gained by adhering to the formal process of post, rather than by email, with the cost and delay associated with the former.
“Mr Minus submitted that, at very minimum, justice required that the parties against whom orders were proposed to be made should be given adequate and appropriate notice of a hearing and provided with the material to be relied on so that they could seek advice,” she added.
“Whilst that submission is undoubtedly correct as far as it goes, it does not address why service by email of the interlocutory process and the affidavits was somehow inadequate notice of the date and time of the hearing and the material to be relied on.”
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
