The High Court has allowed limited cross-examination in Print and Display Limited’s application to remove Liam Dowdall as liquidator of Dominar Group Limited, which is in voluntary liquidation. The ruling concerns preparation for the removal hearing; it does not decide whether the liquidator should be removed.
Mr Justice Tony O’Connor delivered the ex tempore judgment on 26 July 2019. The applicant sought permission to cross-examine the liquidator on five topics: the company’s solvency; the sale of shares in its Polish subsidiary; information supplied to the applicant; preservation of company assets; and funding to remove waste from the company’s remaining asset, the Osmanska 7 site.
The court refused leave to cross-examine on solvency, the share sale and communications. It said financial statements and records could address solvency, and found no material factual dispute about the sale of the Polish subsidiary’s shares. It also said the adequacy of information supplied could be assessed from the affidavit evidence and submissions.
On asset preservation, the judgment linked the dispute to Polish proceedings for damages for alleged misrepresentation involving a company in which Dominar had an interest. Those proceedings were dismissed in Poland on 5 February 2015, and the liquidator accepted legal advice not to appeal. The court said the judge hearing the removal application might benefit from evidence or clarification on this issue and granted leave to cross-examine the liquidator, subject to the hearing judge’s control over the questions.
The court left it to the judge hearing the removal application to decide whether cross-examination or further questions would assist on financing the removal of waste from the Osmanska 7 site. It also granted leave for the liquidator’s counsel to cross-examine Jim Conway, a director of the applicant, on facts approved by that judge.
The court’s order was therefore limited: cross-examination was permitted on asset preservation, and any questioning of either witness remains subject to the judge conducting the removal hearing. The judgment notes that the applicant and respondent wanted the underlying application determined soon.