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.

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.