- Liquidators can compel any person with knowledge of company affairs to appear for examination under ss 596A and 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), not just directors.
- Ignoring a valid court summons is criminal contempt of court, not a civil matter. It is punishable by imprisonment and unlimited fine.
- In Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia v Mensink (Contempt) [2026] FCA 1470, Justice Rangiah found Clive Mensink guilty of criminal contempt on 8 October 2026 after he left Australia in 2016 and never returned to answer a liquidator’s summons.
- There is no “too far away” defence. The Federal Court tried Mensink in absentia after two failed appeals. A contempt finding does not require the contemnor to be present.
- Sentencing submissions in Mensink are still pending. The legal consequences of deliberate defiance are real, live, and unresolved.
A public examination is a compulsory court process under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that requires a director, officer, or any person with knowledge of a company’s affairs to appear before the court and answer questions under oath. If you ignore the summons, you are not ignoring a letter. You are ignoring a court order. The Federal Court’s finding in Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia v Mensink (Contempt) [2026] FCA 1470 on 8 October 2026 makes clear what happens when a director decides the rules do not apply to them.
What Is a Public Examination Under the Corporations Act?
A public examination is one of the most powerful investigative tools available to an insolvency lawyer in Brisbane acting for a liquidator. It is governed by ss 596A and 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and authorises a court to issue a summons compelling a person to appear for questioning about the affairs of a company under external administration.
The two sections operate differently. Under s 596A, an eligible applicant (which includes a liquidator) has an entitlement as of right to obtain a summons. The court has no discretion to refuse it if the procedural requirements are satisfied. Under s 596B, the court has a discretion to order an examination at the request of other persons. The practical difference matters: a liquidator acting under s 596A does not need to persuade the court that an examination is warranted. The right to summons is automatic once the application is properly made.
Who can be summoned? The legislation is deliberately broad. A summons under s 596A or s 596B can be directed at a current or former officer of the company, or any other person who the liquidator believes has knowledge of the company’s affairs. This includes accountants, bankers, advisers, and associates. Being a director is not a precondition. Having knowledge is enough.
Once summoned, a person must attend and answer questions about the company’s affairs. The examination is conducted in open court unless the court orders otherwise. It is not an informal interview. It is not optional. The summons is a court order.
One of the most important and most misunderstood aspects of the public examination regime is the treatment of the privilege against self-incrimination. Under s 597(12) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the privilege against self-incrimination is abrogated. A person cannot refuse to answer questions on the ground that the answers might incriminate them. However, the abrogation is not without a safeguard: a person’s answers at a public examination are not admissible in evidence against that person in any criminal proceedings, other than proceedings for an offence arising out of the falsity of the answer itself. The obligation to answer is absolute. The use that can be made of those answers in criminal proceedings against the examinee is restricted. That is a critical nuance and one that any director who has received a summons must understand before they attend or before they consider not attending.
For a full explanation of how public examinations work in practice, see our earlier guide on public examinations in insolvency.
What Happened in the Mensink Case
Clive Theodore Mensink was a director of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd, the company that operated a nickel refinery in Townsville. In 2016, Queensland Nickel collapsed with debts exceeding $226 million. Approximately 800 workers lost their jobs. Liquidators were appointed.
As part of their investigation into the collapse, the liquidators sought and obtained a court summons requiring Mensink to attend a public examination. Before he could appear, Mensink left Australia in June 2016. He did not return. He is believed to have been living in Bulgaria.
Contempt proceedings were commenced. Mensink sought to avoid them. Two appeals failed in 2022. The Federal Court ultimately tried him in absentia over two days in June 2026.
On 8 October 2026, Justice Darryl Rangiah of the Federal Court of Australia, sitting in Brisbane, delivered his findings: Mensink was guilty of criminal contempt of court for deliberately failing to comply with the court summons.
Mensink had advanced reasons for his non-attendance, including health issues, stress, depression, financial burdens, and what he characterised as unfair treatment. Justice Rangiah rejected those explanations. His Honour found they were “self-serving” and were contradicted by Mensink’s own account of rapid recovery and subsequent travel to Bulgaria. Justice Rangiah concluded: “The description he gave of his state of mind is consistent with a deliberate choice not to return to Australia for examination.”
A second charge, relating to failing to comply with a court order, was dismissed. The guilty finding on the criminal contempt charge stands.
Sentencing submissions have not yet been heard. No sentence has been imposed. The matter remains before the court.
What Criminal Contempt Actually Means
Not all contempt is the same. There is an important distinction between civil contempt and criminal contempt, and the difference matters enormously for a director who has received a summons and is thinking about ignoring it.
Civil contempt generally involves conduct that is a breach of a court order in circumstances where the primary purpose of the sanction is to compel compliance. The contemnor can often purge the contempt by doing what the order required. Criminal contempt is different. It involves deliberate defiance of the authority of the court. The sanction is not primarily about compelling future compliance. It is about vindicating the court’s authority and punishing the wilful disregard of its orders. Criminal contempt is punishable by imprisonment and unlimited fine.
The conduct Justice Rangiah found in the Mensink case was criminal contempt: a deliberate choice not to return, made with knowledge of the summons and its legal force. That characterisation carries serious consequences. There is no civil analogue that allows Mensink to simply “purge” the contempt by now attending an examination. The finding is a criminal one.
One of the features of the Mensink case that every Queensland director should understand is this: the Federal Court tried Mensink in absentia. The court did not require him to be present to find him guilty. His overseas location did not protect him from the legal process. His absence did not delay the finding. It simply meant the contempt finding was made without him there to contest it in person. Two appeals to delay the proceedings were dismissed. The court proceeded regardless.
There is no limitation period on contempt proceedings. A liquidator’s summons does not expire. The court’s authority to enforce compliance does not lapse because a director has left the country or allowed years to pass. The Mensink matter has been running since 2016. A contempt finding arrived in October 2026. The timeline illustrates both the persistence of the court’s reach and the real risk of treating delay as a strategy.
What Directors Should Do When a Liquidator Contacts Them
Receiving correspondence from a liquidator is not the same as being accused of a crime. A public examination is a compulsory information-gathering process. A summons to attend is an obligation, not a charge. However, the questions asked at an examination can, and regularly do, lead to further consequences including claims for insolvent trading, unfair preferences, and breaches of director duties. This is why the moment a liquidator makes contact, legal advice is essential.
The first and most important step is to get legal advice immediately. Do not ignore the correspondence. Do not delay. The consequences of ignoring a summons, as the Mensink case demonstrates, are categorically worse than the consequences of attending with proper preparation. A director who cooperates with the examination process through experienced insolvency lawyers in Brisbane is in a fundamentally different position from one who defies the court’s authority.
The examination is compulsory, but attending it is not the same as waiving your rights or exposing yourself to unlimited liability. The s 597(12) restriction on the use of examination answers in criminal proceedings provides a meaningful safeguard. Understanding how that safeguard works, and what it does not cover, is part of what your solicitor will prepare you for before you attend.
Practical preparation for a public examination includes:
- Reviewing all company records, correspondence, and financial documents to which you have access.
- Understanding the scope of the liquidator’s investigation and what areas are likely to be explored.
- Knowing which questions you are required to answer and understanding the limited circumstances in which objections can be raised.
- Attending with counsel who can object to questions that are outside the proper scope of the examination or that are unfairly framed.
There is a meaningful difference between cooperating with a liquidator’s investigation and creating unnecessary personal exposure. A director who attends a public examination well-prepared and legally represented controls the process to the extent the law permits. A director who ignores the summons loses that control entirely.
If you are a director of a company that is in liquidation, or a company facing financial difficulty, the director disputes and insolvency teams at Boss Lawyers can advise you on your obligations and your rights before any summons is issued. Early advice consistently produces better outcomes than reactive advice after a court process has been commenced. For broader context on the litigation and enforcement that may follow an insolvency, see our commercial litigation team’s work.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a liquidator force me to answer questions about my company?
Yes. Under ss 596A and 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), a liquidator can obtain a court summons requiring you to attend a public examination and answer questions about the company’s affairs. The privilege against self-incrimination is abrogated by s 597(12). You cannot refuse to answer on the basis that the answer may incriminate you. However, your answers are not admissible against you in criminal proceedings, except in proceedings for giving a false answer.
What happens if I miss a public examination summons?
Failing to comply with a court summons for a public examination is a contempt of court. As the Mensink case demonstrates, the court can proceed in your absence, find you guilty of criminal contempt, and impose a penalty including imprisonment. There is no limitation period on contempt proceedings. The court’s reach does not expire because you have left the country or because time has passed.
Can I refuse to answer questions at a public examination?
No. The privilege against self-incrimination is abrogated by s 597(12) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). You must answer questions about the company’s affairs. However, your answers cannot be used against you in criminal proceedings other than for giving a false answer. Objections can be raised to questions that fall outside the proper scope of the examination, and you should attend with legal representation to identify and raise any such objections appropriately.
Does it matter if I am overseas when a summons is issued?
No. Being overseas does not exempt you from a court summons or from the court’s jurisdiction to find you in contempt. The Federal Court tried Clive Mensink in absentia over two days in June 2026 and found him guilty of criminal contempt on 8 October 2026. Two prior appeals to delay the proceedings were dismissed. Being overseas is not a defence and does not prevent the court from proceeding.
How long after a company collapses can a liquidator summon me?
There is no fixed time limit on a liquidator’s right to obtain a public examination summons. Queensland Nickel collapsed in 2016. The contempt finding against Mensink was made in October 2026, a decade later. Contempt proceedings have no limitation period. Liquidations involving large debts can run for many years, and a liquidator’s investigative powers remain available throughout the administration.
Talk to a Lawyer Before the Summons Arrives
If you have received correspondence from a liquidator, or if your company is in external administration and you are concerned about your exposure as a director of a company in liquidation, call Mark Harley on 1300 267 711 or contact Boss Lawyers today. We act for directors navigating insolvency investigations throughout Queensland from our Brisbane CBD offices.
About the Author
Mark Harley is the Principal Solicitor of Boss Lawyers, a commercial litigation and insolvency firm based in Brisbane CBD. Mark Harley is a Doyle’s Guide recommended lawyer. Boss Lawyers acts for directors, creditors, and companies across Queensland in insolvency, director disputes, and commercial litigation.
This is general information only and is not legal advice. You should obtain professional advice specific to your circumstances.
