OCEANIC CAPITAL PTY LTD -v- FREEDOM CARE GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED [2026] WASC 308

[2026] WASC 308 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CHAMBERS CITATION : OCEANIC CAPITAL PTY LTD -v- FREEDOM CARE GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED [2026] WASC 308 CORAM : HILL J HEARD : 27 JULY 2026 DELIVERED : 4 AUGUST 2026 FILE NO/S : COR 14 of 2026 BETWEEN : OCEANIC CAPITAL PTY LTD Plaintiff AND FREEDOM CARE GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED Defendant Catchwords: Corporations - Application by shareholder for inspection of six categories of books and records under s 247A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - Whether plaintiff has established in relation to each category that it is seeking access in good faith and for a proper purpose - Whether discretion should be exercised to allow inspection - Application successful in part Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 247A -- 1 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 308 Page 2 Result: Application granted in part Category: B Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff : L Christensen Defendant : S D Waddington Solicitors: Plaintiff : CX Law Defendant : Corrs Chambers Westgarth Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Enares Pty Ltd v Nimble Money Ltd [2022] FCAFC 126 Mesa Minerals Ltd v Mighty River International Ltd (2016) 241 FCR 241 Praetorin Pty Ltd v TZ Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1237 Rasley (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Financial & Energy Exchange Ltd [2020] FCA 1462 -- 2 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 308 HILL J Page 3 HILL J: 1 On 10 February 2026, the plaintiff, Oceanic Capital Pty Ltd (Oceanic Capital), filed an originating process seeking orders pursuant to s 247A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to enable its representatives1 to inspect the books and records of the defendant, Freedom Care Group Holdings Limited (Freedom Care). In the originating process, no attempt was made to specify the documents Oceanic Capital sought to inspect. Subsequently, in a minute of proposed orders filed on 12 June 2026, Oceanic Capital's application was narrowed to six categories of documents. 2 In support of the application, Oceanic Capital relied on five affidavits, being: (a) four affidavits of David Michael, a director of Oceanic Capital, filed 10 February, 31 March, 28 May, and 23 July 2026; and (b) an affidavit of Nerida Smith, an employee of Oceanic Capital's solicitors, filed 26 February 2026. 3 Oceanic Capital seeks to inspect a wide range of Freedom Care's documents because, in its submission, Freedom Care has failed to comply with the obligations imposed on it by the Act and the Listing Rules of the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) to provide timely and meaningful information to shareholders, and enable them to ask questions of the company and its auditors at an annual general meeting. 4 Oceanic Capital's application is opposed by Freedom Care, essentially on the basis that Oceanic Capital has not established there is a case for investigation which would justify orders for inspection being made by the court, particularly in relation to the broad categories of documents sought. 5 For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that Oceanic Capital's application should be allowed in part. Factual background 6 In 2023, Oceanic Capital acquired shares in Freedom Care under a prospectus issued on 11 September 2023.2 It currently owns 1 These representatives are Oceanic Capital's directors and officers, its legal representatives, and accountants from BDO Services Pty Ltd. 2 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 10 February 2026 [4], 'DM2'. -- 3 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 308 HILL J Page 4 1,250,000 shares, which is approximately 1.15% of the total number of issued shares.3 7 On 30 November 2023, Freedom Care was listed on the ASX. Its directors are Zoran Grujic, Ola El Helu and Jamal Sabsabi. At that time, its major operating business was owned by a wholly owned subsidiary, Freedom Care Group Pty Ltd (Freedom Care Group). Freedom Care Group was a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provider and carried on business providing or arranging services for people with complex disabilities, including lodging claims on their behalf with the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). The directors of Freedom Care Group are Mr Sabsabi, Ahmed Ibrahim, and Walid Jamal-Eddine.4 8 On 24 June 2024, the NDIA wrote to Freedom Care Group raising issues with the amounts that had been claimed. The NDIA contended that Freedom Care Group had claimed more than $800,000 that it was not entitled to (First Review). On 9 July 2024, Freedom Care Group made submissions in response as to why it contended this was incorrect. On 12 September 2024, Freedom Care Group received a letter from the NDIA reducing the amount said to have been overclaimed by Freedom Care Group to less than $350,000. 9 Shortly afterwards, on 18 September 2024, the NDIA wrote to Freedom Care Group to inform it that the NDIA would be conducting a separate review of all claims lodged by Freedom Care Group due to 'inconsistencies in claiming behaviours' (Second Review), and that the NDIA had suspended all payment requests from 12 September 2024. At that time, it was anticipated the Second Review would be completed within two weeks. Subsequently, Freedom Care Group received requests for information from the NDIA (on 24 September and 1 October 2024), which it responded to in October 2024. 10 On 30 September 2024, Freedom Care released its 2024 annual report and financial statements.5 As noted in the annual report, 95% of Freedom Care's annual revenue was derived from the Australian government. The Chairman's foreword stated that:6 3 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 10 February 2026, 'DM3', 'DM11' page 403. 4 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 10 February 2026, 'DM7'. 5 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 10 February 2026, 'DM11'. 6 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 10 February 2026, 'DM11', page 362. -- 4 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 308 HILL J Page 5 Despite some speculative media reports, I want to reassure our shareholders that sustained growth within Australia's NDIS is anticipated over the coming years. 11 The Chairman's foreword also stated that Freedom Care was well-positioned to benefit from the sustained growth in NDIS expenditure. The annual report did not mention the concerns that had been raised by the NDIA, the First or Second Review, or that payments had been suspended, including when referring to matters subsequent to the end of financial year. 12 On 24 October 2024, the NDIA advised Freedom Care Group that the First Review was complete and that it was required to repay almost $400,000 by 22 November 2024. Subsequently, Freedom Care Group entered into a payment plan for this amount. 13 On 6 November 2024, following receipt of a letter from the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (Commission) after trading hours on 4 November 2024, Freedom Care announced that the Commission had formed the preliminary view that the registration of Freedom Care Group should be revoked and that a permanent ban may be appropriate. 14 On 12 November 2024, Freedom Care's securities were placed into a trading halt and subsequently on 14 November 2024 were suspended from trading. As at the date of the hearing, its securities remain suspended from trading.7 15 On 5 December 2024, administrators were appointed to Freedom Care Group. In their report to creditors for the second creditors' meeting, the administrators expressed the view, based on their investigations and discussions with the NDIA, that Freedom Care Group had 'poor controls and procedures related to providing adequate support documentation for claims',8 and that the directors of Freedom Care Group may have breached their duties under s 180 of the Act. 16 On 21 January 2025, at the second creditors' meeting, the creditors of Freedom Care Group resolved to wind up the company, and the administrators were appointed as liquidators.9 7 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 10 February 2026 [6]; Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 23 July 2026, 'DM28'. 8 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 10 February 2026, 'DM6', page 290. 9 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 10 February 2026, 'DM7'. -- 5 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 308 HILL J Page 6 17 On 25 March 2025, the Commission announced that Freedom Care Group's registration had been revoked and that it was permanently banned from providing support and services to people in the NDIS. 18 Since June 2025, Oceanic Capital (either by itself or with other shareholders) has raised, through its solicitors, concerns about the management of Freedom Care and whether the failure of Freedom Care Group occurred as a result of negligence and/or breach of directors' duties. Concerns have also been raised about Freedom Care's compliance with its continuous disclosure obligations.10 These allegations have been denied by Freedom Care's solicitors, who provided a detailed response to these concerns.11 On 28 November 2025, the solicitors for Oceanic Capital foreshadowed this application.12 No substantive response was received from Freedom Care in relation to the foreshadowed application before it was filed. 19 At the time the application was filed, Mr Michael believed the last financial report Freedom Care had provided to its members was its report for the financial year ending 30 June 2024.13 Freedom Care did not hold an annual general meeting in 2025 and has not in 2025 or 2026 provided its members with an opportunity to ask questions of the directors and/or its auditors.14 20 Since Oceanic Capital's application was filed, Freedom Care has released a market update following the suspension of its shares from trading and the placement of its primary operating subsidiary into liquidation,15 as well as its half-year financial report to 31 December 2024,16 audited financial reports for 30 June 2025,17 its half-year report to 31 December 2025,18 and its quarterly reports for the 2025/2026 financial year.19 Only the quarterly financial report for the quarter ending 30 June 2026 was filed within time. On 1 July 2026, Freedom 10 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 10 February 2026, 'DM4'. 11 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 10 February 2026, 'DM5'. 12 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 10 February 2026, 'DM8'. 13 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 10 February 2026 [16], 'DM11'. 14 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 10 February 2026 [17]. Although Mr Michael does not recall receiving a notice of general meeting for 2024, the letter from Oceanic Capital's solicitors refers to a notice for its 2024 AGM having been issued on 29 October 2024 (see 'DM4', page 256). 15 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 31 March 2026, 'DM14'. 16 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 31 March 2026, 'DM13'. 17 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 28 May 2026, 'DM21'. 18 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 28 May 2026, 'DM18'. 19 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 28 May 2026, 'DM19', 'DM20'; Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 23 July 2026, 'DM27', 'DM26'. -- 6 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 308 HILL J Page 7 Care announced it had changed its registered office to Mr Sabsabi's residential address.20 21 The market update released by Freedom Care on 27 February 2026 acknowledged the 'turbulent period' that had followed the suspension of its shares from trading and the placement of Freedom Care Group into liquidation. It stated the directors were working to ensure Freedom Care maintained its status as a listed company and that the board was maintaining 'active and constructive correspondence with the liquidators' to, among other things, maximise recoveries for Freedom Care and protect shareholder interests. It indicated that the market would be updated as 'material information became available'.21 No further announcement or update has been made since this time. 22 In Freedom Care's half-year report to 31 December 2024, financial report to 30 June 2025, and half-year report to 31 December 2025, the directors noted, in their directors' report, that there was a material uncertainty about the company's ability to continue as a going concern. Each of these reports stated that: (a) Freedom Care was actively pursuing the disposal of certain investments and non-core assets; and (b) the board continued to evaluate strategic alternatives, including recapitalisation to restore shareholder value and to enable it to seek reinstatement on the ASX. 23 In his first affidavit filed in support of the application, Mr Michael did not specify Oceanic Capital's purpose for the proposed inspection of documents. In his subsequent affidavits, Mr Michael has explained that Oceanic Capital's purposes in seeking access to the books and records of the company are to ascertain:22 (a) whether Freedom Care's investment in Koala Disability Care Pty Ltd (Koala Disability Care) would be sufficient to justify Freedom Care's continued ASX listing, and what steps have been taken to ensure Freedom Care can continue as a listed entity; 20 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 23 July 2026, 'DM29'. 21 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 31 March 2026, 'DM14'. 22 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 31 March 2026 [9]; Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 23 July 2026 [3]. -- 7 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 308 HILL J Page 8 (b) whether the directors of Freedom Care have the ability to manage the company; (c) whether the directors of Freedom Care have breached their duties as directors; (d) whether there are claims by shareholders against Freedom Care or by Freedom Care against its directors (without specifying the nature of these claims); and (e) whether Oceanic Capital has a claim for oppression against Freedom Care and/or its officers. Should orders be made for Oceanic Capital to inspect Freedom Care's books? 24 Section 247A of the Act empowers the court, on an application by a member of the company, to make an order authorising the member or another person on its behalf to inspect the books of the company. 'Books' are defined broadly in s 9 of the Act and include any record of information as well as a document. The court may only make the order if it is satisfied the applicant is acting in good faith and for a proper purpose. It is widely accepted by the courts that this is a composite expression.23 25 The legislation confers a broad discretion on the court and extends to consideration of 'what the court ought to require the company to tell its shareholders, not just what the company has a legal duty to tell its shareholders'.24 However, the procedure is not intended to be as wide-ranging as discovery.25 26 Oceanic Capital bears the onus of establishing it is acting in good faith and for a proper purpose. The purpose must be the dominant or primary purpose in relation to each category of documents and must relate to the rights of the applicant, as a shareholder of the company, concerning the company or its directors and in the context that 23 Mesa Minerals Ltd v Mighty River International Ltd (2016) 241 FCR 241 [22]; Enares Pty Ltd v Nimble Money Ltd [2022] FCAFC 126 [38]. Although some reservations have been expressed about the correctness of this position (see Rasley (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Financial & Energy Exchange Ltd [2020] FCA 1462 [23]), I have adopted the approach of the two Full Courts of the Federal Court of Australia in this decision. 24 Rasley (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Financial & Energy Exchange Ltd [26]. 25 Mesa Minerals Ltd v Mighty River International Ltd [22(12)]. -- 8 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 308 HILL J Page 9 ordinarily shareholders are not entitled as of right to challenge the managerial decisions of directors.26 27 As was stated by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Enares Pty Ltd v Nimble Money Ltd:27 Although there have been many statements attempting to explicate the content of the expression 'acting in good faith and that the inspection is to be made for a proper purpose', they are generally concerned with either of two matters. Firstly, whether the applicant's asserted purpose or object of inspection is a legitimate one given the nature of the statutory relationship between shareholder, on the one hand, and the company and its directors, on the other? The second aspect is whether the applicant has established by admissible evidence that it, in fact, has the asserted purpose and that the application has been made to advance it. That is, is it pursuing the asserted purpose in good faith? There is no doubt that these matters will regularly involve overlapping considerations. … For the purposes of this case it is only necessary to observe that seeking inspection of documents in order to ascertain whether there has been a breach of a directors' duty or whether oppressive conduct has been engaged in, is self-evidently within the scope of a proper purpose. It can also be accepted that a legitimate purpose of inspection is the desire of a member to protect their investment in the company. (citations omitted) 28 The applicant must establish that it is seeking to pursue the asserted proper purpose in good faith. This requires the court to assess the probative strength of the evidence which is said to give rise to the concern. This is commonly referred to in the authorities as the requirement to establish a case for investigation. This requirement has the effect of excluding applications by members who do not have any foundation for concern about a company's operation but rather wish to ascertain if something untoward has or may have happened. The section does not permit inspection by shareholders who are unsure about whether the directors have complied with their duty and merely wish to examine the company's books to satisfy themselves that no breach has occurred.28 26 Mesa Minerals Ltd v Mighty River International Ltd [22]; Enares Pty Ltd v Nimble Money Ltd [43]. 27 Enares Pty Ltd v Nimble Money Ltd [39], [42]. 28 Enares Pty Ltd v Nimble Money Ltd [46]. -- 9 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 308 HILL J Page 10 29 Where the power to make an order under s 247A of the Act is enlivened, the court then has a discretion whether to grant the orders sought.29 30 In this case, as a member of Freedom Care, I accept that Oceanic Capital has the requisite standing to apply for orders under s 247A of the Act. The essential issue is whether, on the evidence before it, the court can be satisfied, in relation to each of the categories of documents sought, that Oceanic Capital is acting in good faith and the inspection is for a proper purpose. 31 Before turning to address the specific categories of documents sought by Oceanic Capital, as noted by Freedom Care in both its written and oral submissions, one of the difficulties with the application is that Oceanic Capital has made generalised complaints about the conduct of both Freedom Care and its directors without linking these complaints to either the specific categories of documents sought or its purpose. I do not accept that, consistent with the authorities to which I have referred, s 247A of the Act enables a shareholder to inspect documents 'simply to be informed of the defendant's overall position'. That said, I accept that Oceanic Capital has genuine concerns about what has occurred over the last two years and Freedom Care's failure to provide timely information to its members or provide any forum for members to ask questions of its directors. 32 On the evidence before me, I accept there is a case to be investigated as to whether Freedom Care has failed to comply with a number of its obligations under the Act, including the requirement to maintain a registered office at all times (s 142); to lodge financial statements in a timely fashion (s 319(3)); and to convene and hold annual general meetings each calendar year (s 250N(2)). I also accept there is a case to be investigated as to whether, in providing only limited information to shareholders and the timing of the release of this information, Freedom Care has breached its continuous disclosure obligations (s 674) and its directors have breached their duties to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Act. However, these matters of themselves do not, in my view, support the broad ranging categories of documents sought by Oceanic Capital or justify orders being made in the terms sought. 29 Mesa Minerals Ltd v Mighty River International Ltd [26]; Enares Pty Ltd v Nimble Money Ltd [36]. Praetorin Pty Ltd v TZ Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1237 [38] - [39]. -- 10 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 308 HILL J Page 11 33 I turn then to consider the specific categories sought by Oceanic Capital. Category 1 34 The first category of documents sought by Oceanic Capital is extremely broad, namely any document or record of information (however compiled, recorded or stored) relating to: (a) any sale or proposed sale of its shares in Koala Disability Care or the sale of that company's business; (b) the suspension and/or possible delisting of the shares of Freedom Care on the ASX; and (c) its dealings with the NDIS in regard to Freedom Care Group's licence as a NDIS supplier being suspended or revoked. 35 Mr Michael's evidence does not descend into any specific detail as to what Oceanic Capital's concerns are in relation to the first two sub-categories, or what the alleged case for investigation is. The fact that Koala Disability Care is, apart from cash, the only remaining significant asset of Freedom Care does not of itself give rise to a case for investigation. Similarly, it is not clear what relevance documents concerning the suspension and possible delisting of Freedom Care have to the potential claims of the plaintiff. 36 At best, Mr Michael's evidence is that because Freedom Care and its directors have failed to provide details of what Freedom Care is doing in relation to these matters, Oceanic Capital wants to inspect these documents so that it can satisfy itself that no breach is occurring or has occurred. As was noted by Jackson J in Rasley (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Financial & Energy Exchange Ltd:30 The fact that a shareholder who is not affiliated with management does not have much of the information to which management are privy cannot, by itself, mean that there is a matter requiring investigation. 37 I do not consider that the limited evidence in relation to these matters supports a conclusion that there is a case for investigation or that orders should be made for the inspection of these documents. 38 In relation to the third sub-category, on the evidence before me, I accept there is a case to be investigated about the issues surrounding the 30 Rasley (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Financial & Energy Exchange Ltd [66]. -- 11 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 308 HILL J Page 12 revocation of Freedom Care Group's NDIS licence, namely: first, whether the directors of Freedom Care breached their duties in taking reasonable steps to ensure that appropriate systems and operations were in place in its subsidiary to prevent the lodgement of fraudulent or unsubstantiated claims; second, whether Freedom Care complied with its continuous disclosure obligations in relation to the issues concerning its subsidiary; and third, whether there has been any breach by the directors of their duties to take reasonable steps to ensure Freedom Care complied with its obligations of continuous disclosure. In my view, each of these issues is reasonably connected with the proper exercise of Oceanic Capital's rights as a shareholder, particularly as a shareholder who purchased shares as part of the initial public offering of Freedom Care. 39 While I accept that there is a case to be investigated, the category of documents sought by Oceanic Capital is broad and is akin to an obligation of discovery. In my view, the documents that should be made available for inspection by Oceanic Capital are those specific documents which evidence Freedom Care's knowledge of the issues raised by the NDIA or the Commission (including when it first became aware of the issues), as well as what oversight it or its directors had of its subsidiary's systems to prevent the lodgement of fraudulent or unsubstantiated claims and what it or the directors did to monitor this position. 40 It is not possible on the evidence before the court to articulate an appropriate description or category of the documents which can be inspected. The scope of these documents must reasonably relate to the cases for investigation and be capable of addressing the concerns of Oceanic Capital that I have accepted are genuine. The parties should confer to attempt to agree categories. If they are unable to reach agreement, the matter can be relisted to resolve any outstanding issues. Category 2 - Minutes of all meetings of directors, if any, from 30 June 2024 to date 41 Oceanic Capital did not specifically address in either its evidence or submissions the basis on which it contended all minutes of directors' meetings should be produced for inspection. On this basis, Freedom Care denied that Oceanic Capital had discharged its onus in relation to this category. 42 While I accept that Oceanic Capital has not sought to place any limitation on the minutes (by topic), in the circumstances of this case, I -- 12 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 308 HILL J Page 13 do not consider this is required. On the evidence before me, it is clear that Freedom Care Group's issues with the NDIA first arose in June 2024, although no announcement was made by Freedom Care until 6 November 2024. As set out above, I consider there is a case to be investigated as to the knowledge of the directors of Freedom Care of this issue, as well as whether they have breached their duties as directors in failing to take reasonable steps to ensure Freedom Care complied with its obligations of continuous disclosure or to put appropriate systems in place. In addition, given Freedom Care's apparent failure to comply with a number of its obligations under the Act (as set out at [32] above), there is a case for investigation as to the directors' knowledge of these matters, why they occurred, and whether there is any reason proffered for each apparent failure. 43 Given the number of cases to be investigated, I consider it is appropriate to make an order for inspection of all board minutes from 30 June 2024. Category 3 - Correspondence between the defendant, its directors and the administrators or liquidators of any of its subsidiaries 44 Once again, Oceanic Capital did not address why this correspondence was relevant to any of its cases for investigation. On this basis, Freedom Care denied that Oceanic Capital had discharged its onus. 45 I accept this submission. On the evidence before me, I accept that the directors of Freedom Care have corresponded with the liquidators of Freedom Care Group. Freedom Care says that its objective in doing so was to maximise recoveries where possible; ensure the orderly management of the liquidation process; and protect the interests of shareholders.31 It is not apparent why this correspondence is relevant to any of the cases for investigation raised by Oceanic Capital. 46 Given this, I decline to order the inspection of this category of documents. Category 4 - Correspondence between the defendant and its auditors in relation to the financial statements for 30 June 2025 47 Neither Mr Michael's evidence nor Oceanic Capital's submissions descend into any detail as to the purpose for which inspection of these documents is sought or what the case to be investigated is. The 31 Affidavit of David Kenneth Wallace Michael filed 31 March 2026, 'DM14'. -- 13 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 308 HILL J Page 14 directors, in their report in the financial statements, express a view that Freedom Care may not be a going concern. This has been accepted by the auditors as giving a true and correct view of the company. 48 In submissions, counsel for Oceanic Capital submitted this correspondence may explain why there was a delay in the lodgement of the financial reports. I accept it is possible that there may be something in the correspondence that would explain the delay. However, for two reasons, I do not accept this means that an order should be made for inspection of these documents. First, Oceanic Capital has not raised any concern about the content of the financial statements or the auditors' report. In these circumstances, I do not consider that Oceanic Capital has discharged its onus in establishing there is a case to investigate in relation to these documents. Second, if Oceanic Capital's primary complaint is that Freedom Care has failed to comply with numerous obligations under the Act, this can be established by the dates on which its financial statements were lodged as compared to the dates on which they were required to be lodged. This does not require production of any documents. Category 5 - All documents regarding the lifting of the suspension of trading of the defendant's shares 49 At the hearing, counsel for Oceanic Capital accepted this category overlapped with category 1(b). As set out above, Mr Michael's evidence does not descend into any specific detail as to what Oceanic Capital's concerns are in relation to the suspension of trading in the shares of Freedom Care, nor how these documents relate to any potential claims it may have. 50 I do not consider Oceanic Capital has discharged its onus or that orders should be made for inspection of this category of documents. Category 6 - all documents relating to the revocation of the Freedom Care Group's NDIS registration 51 At the hearing, counsel for Oceanic Capital accepted this category overlapped with category 1(c). 52 For the reasons set out at [37] - [38], it is my view that this category is too broad and that the parties should confer to agree a more limited category of documents that should be produced for inspection taking account of these reasons. -- 14 of 15 -- [2026] WASC 308 HILL J Page 15 Should the discretion be exercised in favour of ordering the inspection of documents? 53 Freedom Care did not separately raise any reason the court should not exercise its discretion to make orders for inspection in the event the court was satisfied that inspection of categories of documents was for a proper purpose and that Oceanic Capital was acting in good faith. 54 Given this, I accept it is appropriate to exercise my discretion to make an order for inspection in respect of some of the categories of documents. Conclusion 55 For these reasons, Oceanic Capital's application will be allowed in part. An order will be made for inspection of the documents in category 2, and categories 1(c) and 6 as narrowed consistently with these reasons. The parties should confer as to the precise categories of documents to be inspected and any conditions that should be placed on the inspection. Oceanic Capital's application will otherwise be dismissed. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. KS Associate to the Hon Justice Hill 4 AUGUST 2026 -- 15 of 15 --