Banerjee (Liquidator), in the matter of Coast to Coast Trading Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liq) [2026] FCA 375

This case arose in the liquidation of Coast to Coast Trading Pty Limited. The liquidator, Mr Shumit Banerjee, was investigating the company's affairs and had sought an order for production against Barkley Trading (HK) Limited, a company in Hong Kong. The Federal Court record shows that the liquidator had filed an originating process on 30 October 2025 seeking, among other things, that production order under s 597(9) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and r 30.34 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

A registrar of the Court made the production order on 4 March 2026. The judgment before Perram J was not about whether that order should originally have been made. Instead, it dealt with the next practical step. Because Barkley Trading's registered office was in Hong Kong, the liquidator needed leave to serve the order outside Australia.

The application was ex parte and determined on the papers. That means the Court was dealing with a procedural request based on affidavit material, rather than hearing a contested argument from both sides. The reasons are short and focused. They do not set out the broader commercial dealings between Coast to Coast Trading and Barkley Trading, and they do not describe the underlying dispute in detail. What they do show is how an Australian liquidator sought to reach a foreign company for documents relevant to the winding up.

The live issue was narrow but important. Under r 10.44 of the Federal Court Rules, documents other than an originating application may be served outside Australia with leave of the Court. The liquidator therefore needed the Court's permission to serve the 4 March 2026 production order in Hong Kong.

That raised a practical legal question: was the proposed method of service valid and appropriate in the place where service would occur? Rule 10.46 mattered as well. Perram J noted that if leave is granted, the order need not be personally served so long as it is served in accordance with the law of the country in which service is effected, which here was Hong Kong.

The liquidator's solicitor, Mr Marc Rossi, had given affidavit evidence about Hong Kong service law and the proposed method of service. The proposed method was international registered post to Barkley Trading's registered office, with return receipt. The Court then considered whether that method fitted with the Hague Service Convention and Hong Kong company law.

The Court also considered comity. In cross-border matters, Australian courts are careful not to authorise steps that would improperly cut across the legal system of another place. So the question was not only whether the Federal Court Rules permitted overseas service, but also whether the proposed service method sat comfortably with Hong Kong law and the international framework applying there.

The reasons do not spell out the full categories of documents sought. What they do say is that the liquidator explained in his affidavit dated 30 October 2025 that the categories of documents sought from Barkley Trading were directed to facilitating the enquiries he intended to make into the affairs of Coast to Coast Trading.

That point matters because it shows the procedural setting. The Court was dealing with a liquidator using a statutory production mechanism as part of an investigation into the company's affairs. Perram J expressly said that a registrar had already been satisfied on the evidence before her that an order for production should be made, and that he did not need to re-examine that determination.

So this judgment does not revisit whether the documents were properly sought in the first place. It assumes the existence of the production order and asks whether the liquidator should be allowed to serve it in Hong Kong. That is why the case is best understood as a decision about the mechanics of cross-border service, not a substantive ruling about the scope of the liquidator's investigative powers in this particular factual dispute.

For business readers, that distinction is important. A company may find itself dealing with two separate questions in practice. First, can an Australian court make an order requiring documents to be produced? Second, if the person or company holding those documents is overseas, how can that order be validly served? This case is mainly about the second question.

Perram J granted leave for the liquidator to serve the 4 March 2026 production order on Barkley Trading outside Australia. The Court accepted the evidence about Hong Kong service law and the proposed method of service.

The reasons identify two key legal supports for that conclusion. First, the Hague Service Convention applied in Hong Kong, and Article 10(a) did not interfere with the freedom to send judicial documents by postal channels directly to persons abroad. Secondly, s 827 of the Hong Kong Companies Ordinance provided that a document may be served on a company by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, the company's registered office. On that basis, service by international registered post to Barkley Trading's registered office with return receipt was accepted.

The Court also addressed comity and was satisfied it did not preclude the grant of leave. Perram J referred to the fact that the liquidator proposed to serve the order in accordance with the Hague Convention. He also noted that s 597(9) of the Corporations Act confers powers on the liquidator similar to ss 596A and 596B, which Parliament had intended to have extraterritorial effect according to the authorities cited.

There was also a practical additional order. To allow time for service to be effected, the leave to serve outside Australia was extended to any further order of the Court varying the date for production in the order made on 4 March 2026. That is a useful reminder that cross-border service can create timing issues, and courts may make ancillary orders to keep the process workable.

Businesses with cross-border operations should read this case as a reminder that offshore record-holding arrangements do not automatically shield documents from Australian insolvency processes. If records are held by a foreign affiliate, trading company, supplier or related entity, an Australian liquidator may seek court-backed production and then ask the Court for leave to serve the relevant order overseas.

Just as importantly, the case shows that the practical battleground may be service mechanics rather than the underlying merits. Registered office details, local service rules, international conventions and proof of delivery can all matter. A business that treats its overseas registered office as a formality, or that does not monitor mail sent there, may miss important legal documents.

The judgment is also a governance reminder. Directors and managers should know where key records sit, which entity legally holds them, and whether the Australian operating company has contractual or practical access to them. That includes invoices, shipping records, communications, banking material, customer records and intercompany documents. In a distress scenario, uncertainty about who controls records can slow down responses and increase cost.

There is also a narrower point for foreign companies dealing with Australian groups. If your company is the overseas holder of records connected to an Australian business, you may receive Australian court documents through a service method recognised in your jurisdiction. Internal mail handling, escalation procedures and legal review processes should be set up accordingly.

The proceeding was in the Federal Court of Australia, General Division, New South Wales Registry. The file number was NSD 2005 of 2025. The matter was determined on the papers by Perram J. The originating process seeking, among other things, the production order was dated 30 October 2025. The registrar's production order was made on 4 March 2026. Perram J made the overseas service orders on 30 March 2026, and the reasons were published on 1 April 2026.

The judgment is concise, running to seven paragraphs of reasons. Because of that, it is best used as authority on the procedural question it actually decides: leave to serve a production order outside Australia in a Hong Kong setting. It should not be treated as a detailed account of the underlying commercial facts.