Liquidator appointed by Victoria Supreme Court sought to examine company director’s brother
Australia’s Federal Court has granted leave for a liquidator appointed by the Supreme Court of Victoria to serve a summons for examination, certain orders, and copies of orders on an Australian citizen in the US via personal service.
The case was Albarran, in the matter of Perennial Enterprise Pty Ltd (in liq) (Service Abroad) [2026] FCA 1407.
On 16 September 2022, the Victorian court appointed the plaintiff and R. Lawrence as joint and several liquidators of a company in liquidation under s 472(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). R. Lawrence later retired as a liquidator of the company.
The plaintiff believed that T.Y. Perry, an Australian citizen, was the brother of S.Y Perry, the company’s director.
According to the plaintiff, T.Y. Perry was a unitholder in the company, was the recipient of monies from it, and was involved in an entity with dealings with the company.
In distinct proceedings brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, T.Y. Perry was served at an address in Florida, US, on 3 October 2025. Thus, the plaintiff believed that T.Y. Perry lived outside Australia.
Through an order made on 6 August 2026, a judicial registrar issued a summons for examination to T.Y. Perry under s 596B of the Corporations Act. The registrar directed him to attend and produce specific documents.
Before the Federal Court, the plaintiff applied for leave to serve the summons and other documents upon T.Y. Perry in a foreign jurisdiction by way of personal service under r 10.44 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
The plaintiff wanted to examine T.Y. Perry regarding his relationship to the company, money received by him, his involvement in the entity with dealings with the company, and any possible chose in action against him.
In permitting the plaintiff to serve the summons, the Federal Court saw an adequate connection between T.Y. Perry and the subject matter of the proposed examinations under s 596B(1)(b)(i) or (ii) of the Corporations Act.
Based on the evidence, the court determined that:
Lastly, the Federal Court found it appropriate to order the confidential treatment of the plaintiff’s written submissions filed on 4 September 2026 under r 2.32(3) of the Federal Court Rules, pending further court order.
The court’s confidentiality order aimed to avoid the disclosure of material included in an affidavit supporting the application under s 596B of the Corporations Act. The court noted that the affidavit was unavailable for inspection under s 596C(2), except insofar as the court ordered.
Here are some other recent decisions by the Federal Court of Australia.
On 14 September 2026, the court forwarded some material filed in a superannuation proceeding to the Legal Professional Board of Tasmania and the Queensland Legal Services Commission for a determination of whether they should further investigate the applicant’s lawyer.
On 10 September 2026, the court extended a deadline for lodging a deed required for relief that the plaintiffs sought under an Australian Securities and Investments Commission instrument after acknowledging the unintentional and inadvertent nature of their then solicitor’s errors.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest restructuring and insolvency news on the main page!
