Case: Re Cortaus Limited (in liq); Sheahan v Joye &amp; Ors (No. 2) (1996) 20 ACSR 576 
Outcome: distinguished
Counsel for Tristar relied on the decision of this Court (Branson J) in the case of Re Cortaus Limited (in liq); Sheahan v Joye &amp; Ors (No. 2) (1996) 20 ACSR 576, in support of his submission that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of such relief. In that case, each of the first, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents had been issued with a summons pursuant to s 596B of the Corporations Law 2001 (Cth) for examination relating to the affairs of a company in liquidation, Cortaus Limited. It was not in dispute that a final determination of the issues heard by a Full Court of this Court earlier in Southern Steel Supplies Pty Ltd &amp; Anor v Favelle Favco Holdings Limited might result in a determination that this Court lacked jurisdiction to issue summons pursuant to s 596B of the Corporations Law. Her Honour also noted that such final determination might also result in termination, to use her expression, 'a neutral term', of the appointment of Mr Sheahan as liquidator of Cortaus Limited. She observed that if Mr Sheahan's appointment as liquidator of Cortaus Limited were to be terminated, he would lose his qualification as an eligible applicant for the issue of a summons within the meaning of s 596B of the Corporations Law. In response to a submission on behalf of these respondents that the principal prejudice to each was identified as that of being required to travel to Adelaide and there submit to questioning with respect to matters about which they could otherwise not be required to speak, and that the additional prejudice which, at least, some of the respondents would be likely to suffer was identified as interference with their respective professional practices and a measure of loss of income, her Honour responded at 578 in the following terms: 'If the respondents are required to attend for examination relating to Cortaus, and are so examined, and it is subsequently determined that this Court had no jurisdiction to issue the summonses respectively served upon them, their civil liberty to attend to their ordinary affairs without interference, and to keep to themselves information unless and until they choose to disclose it, will have been seriously interfered with.' In my view, that case was very different from the situation here. The persons summonsed were all parties to the inter-partes proceedings. They were required for examination. Here Tristar, a company, is merely required to produce documents, albeit under compulsion. Tristar cannot claim balance of convenience for the interruption caused to the daily lives of its employees, be they directors or members of the union or unions to which their unionised employees belong. It was different in Cortaus where the summonsed parties were parties to the proceeding itself. I am not persuaded in all the circumstances that the interlocutory relief in the form of the second alternative should be granted when to do so would only impede the ability of the Commission to efficiently conduct the Inquiry according to its terms of reference. The claim for interlocutory relief is refused.