A company was liquidated by the Court and a liquidator was appointed thereto. A minority shareholder claimed that the liquidator need be replaced because he caused material damage to the company and its shareholders.
The Court held that judicial review of decisions of an officer of the Court will be limited to extreme cases of deviation from reasonableness in order to leave vast discretion to the officer.
A subjective feeling of a minority shareholder who lost faith in the liquidator is not sufficient grounds for the extreme action of replacement of a liquidator, especially when the motion is made close to the end of the liquidation process and accepting the motion will necessarily require setting the liquidation process back to its beginning. Thus, the Court rejected the motion.