Chief Disruption Officer Pty Ltd as Trustee for the McDonald Family Trust v Michel, in the matter of Laava ID Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 148

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for an order under rule 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that certain questions be determined separately – failure to make application before the trial date was fixed on an expedited basis – application for dispensation – principles relevant to exercise of the Court’s discretion – overarching purpose of civil practice and procedure – separate questions not ordered

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applications for security for costs against a trustee company – form of proposed security – whether proposed undertakings are an adequate form of security – whether a company the subject of an oppression action is entitled to security for costs – applications granted with security in the form of payment into Court or an irrevocable bank guarantee

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – whether a company the subject of an oppression action is entitled to payment of costs thrown away on amendment of pleadings – costs order made

David Rayment and Michael Collins appeared for the First, Second, Third and Fourth Defendants.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

In the matter of Wil Brown Management Pty Ltd and Wil Brown Pty Ltd – Brownlee Enterprises Pty Ltd v Wilmen Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 207

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to amend statement of claim – no issue of principle

CORPORATIONS – statutory derivative action – whether leave should be granted to allow applicant to bring proceedings on behalf of the two companies – where applicant is shareholder of each company – where applicant is also a beneficiary of the trust for which one of the companies acts as trustee – where applicant may also bring proceedings in capacity as beneficiary of the trust – whether probable that companies will bring proceedings themselves – whether applicant acting in good faith in seeking to bring proceedings – whether in the best interests of each company that leave be granted – whether proposed proceedings involve a serious question to be tried – where oppression under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 232 pleaded but means of redress under s 233 may not be available as assets of one company held on trust

David Rayment appeared for the Plaintiffs.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Scrivener v Cappello [2021] NSWCA 330

PARTNERSHIPS AND JOINT VENTURES – rights and duties between partners – fiduciary relationship – obligations – whether the appellant was an accessory to breaches of fiduciary obligations owed to the respondents – where the appellant caused the third respondent to fail to account to the second respondent for one half of the profits derived from the acquisition and subsequent sale of three contiguous parcels of land – where primary judge did not refer to two essential matters to establish accessorial liability under the second limb of Barnes v Addy – where the appellant knew of facts and circumstances which would indicate the fact of the breach on the part of a fiduciary to an honest and reasonable person.

PARTNERSHIPS AND JOINT VENTURES – rights and duties between partners – fiduciary relationship – obligations – whether the appellant was liable to the first respondent or the second respondent.

PARTNERSHIPS AND JOINT VENTURES – rights and duties between partners – interpretation of agreement – oral agreement – where there was an agreement to enter into a partnership to acquire and resell three contiguous parcels of land and share expenses and profits equally – whether the agreement was subject to a sunset condition – where the first respondent’s evidence of oral agreement accepted – where the third respondent was a vehicle entrusted to hold assets on behalf of the partnership.

David Rayment appeared for the First Respondent and Second Respondent.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Jabbcorp (NSW) Pty Ltd v Strathfield Golf Club [2021] NSWCA 154

CONTRACT – construction – design and construct contract – contractor claimed additional payment for works required pursuant to development consent – whether works were “Excluded Works” – significance of definition commencing “Notwithstanding any other clause” – significance of grammatical meaning of clause – clause required to be read as a whole, harmoniously with other provisions in contract.

David Rayment and Andrew Smorchevsky represented the Respondent.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Alexakis v Wan [2021] NSWSC 367

LAND LAW – contracts for the sale of land – deposit payable in two instalments – second instalment payable “on the 4th month after the contract date” – contract dated 4 April 2019 – whether second instalment required to be paid by 4 August 2019, or by 31 August 2019 – held that payment was required by 4 August 2019 – vendors held to be entitled to terminate contract on 5 August 2019 – Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 181(1)(d) definition of “month” as “calendar month” – Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 21 definition of “calendar month”.

EQUITY – equitable remedies – relief in respect of exercise of legal rights – exercise of right to terminate contract for sale of land – breach giving rise to right of termination brought about by purchaser’s mistake – mistake not caused or contributed to by conduct of vendors – serious breach in failing to pay part of deposit within time agreed to be essential – no substantial loss or prejudice to vendors if contract ordered to be performed – not unconscientious of vendors to rely upon their termination – equitable relief declined – forfeiture of deposit of 5% of the price not unjust or inequitable in the circumstances – no order made for return of deposit under s 55(2A) of Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW).

David Rayment represented the Defendants in the matter.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Cappello & Anor v Scrivener & Anor (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 168

JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – what orders should be made to reflect reasons in primary judgment – whether first defendant as well as second defendant liable to pay equitable compensation – quantum of equitable compensation

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by defendants for leave to re-open to tender documents produced on subpoena – where documents relevant to quantum – small number of documents – whether explanation offered by defendants adequate – whether exceptional circumstances shown – whether justice of case requires that leave be granted

David Pritchard SC and David Rayment represented the Plaintiffs.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Cappello & Anor v Scrivener & Anor [2020] NSWSC 1748

CONTRACTS – oral agreement between first plaintiff and first defendant concerning proposed consolidation and possible development of three adjoining sites – where neither party made a note of the agreement – where neither party confirmed to the other in writing an understanding of the agreement – where no one else present when agreement made – where no dispute that a binding agreement was made concerning sharing expenses and profits of the venture – whether agreement was subject to the plaintiff finding buyer for the consolidated sites.

CONTRACTS – oral agreement between first plaintiff and first defendant concerning proposed consolidation and possible development of three adjoining sites – whether parties’ post contractual conduct casts light on true nature of the agreement.

David Pritchard SC and David Rayment represented the Plaintiffs.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.