In recent decisions of Sportsco Pty Ltd v Singh Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] VSC 576 (per Ferguson J) and BKW Investments Pty Ltd v Training Connect Limited [2011] FCA 1314 (per Cowdroy J) the courts considered applications to set aside statutory demands. In Sportsco the court, hearing an appeal from an Associate Justice, refused to set aside the application.  In BKW the court set aside the application.

Sportsco Pty Ltd v Singh Group Pty Ltd (No 2)

Facts

The underlying dispute related to the purchase of a franchise business.  Singh, the purchaser, submitted that the statutory demand on Sportsco for $70,500 was a refundable deposit under the franchise agreement. Sportsco, the vendor, applied to set aside the demand claiming there was a genuine dispute concerning the debt and that it had an offsetting claim.  Singh alleged there was an agreement that the money was refundable if it was unable to obtain finance for the franchise business.  Singh did not obtain finance.  While Singh was provided with an  an offer to lease premises from which the franchise would operate it was never executed by Singh.  Sportsco claimed there was a dispute as to what constituted the agreement and whether the agreement was subject to finance. It also claimed Singh was liable to pay a franchise royalty fee of five years as a consequence of the breach and was liable for damages of approximately $300,000.

Decision

Ferguson J referred to TR administration proprietor Ltd V Frank marketing and Sales Brochure Ltd as support forthe proposition that Read the rest of this entry »

In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey Middleton J found against the directors of Centro Properties Limited.  It is a very long and detailed decision which provides an excellent summary of the obligations of directors.

Facts

ASIC alleged that the approval of the consolidated financial accounts of Centro Property Limited. Centro Property Trust and Centro Retail Trust for the financial year ending 30 June 2007 contravened sections 180(1), 344(1) and 601FD(3) of the Corporations Act 2001. Those contraventions included failing to disclose $1.5billion of short term liabilities of Centro Property and $500 million of Centro Retail by classifying them as non current liabilities and failing to disclose guarantees of short term liabilities of an associated company of about US $1.75 billion that had been given after the balance date (see [24] for a detailed summary of the issues).  Middleton J found that those matters were well known to the directors or, if not well known to them, should have been [11] & [23].

Middleton J found, at [8], the directors failed “..to take all reasonable steps required of them, and acted in the performance of their duties as directors without exercising the degree of care and diligence the law requires of them.”  His consideration of the facts with respect to each director is found at ([289] – [532]).  It is too extensive to comment upon here.  The focus of this post is on the legal principles enunciated by Middleton J.

Decision

Middleton J highlighted the consequences of the breaches and why they are significant when he said, at [10]:

This proceeding is not about a mere technical oversight. The information not disclosed was a matter of significance to the assessment of the risks facing CNP and CER. Giving that information to shareholders and, for a listed company, the market, is one of the fundamental purposes of the requirements of the Act that financial statements and reports must be prepared and published. The importance of the financial statements is one of the fundamental reasons why the directors are required to approve them and resolve that they give a true and fair view.

Principles

Middleton j restated the obligations and responsibilities of a director as: Read the rest of this entry »

In Cohen v State of Victoria Nos 3 (“Cohen”) Forrest J ordered indemnity costs against solicitor for the plaintiff, Oldham Naidoo, arising out of the application by the defendants in Cohen v State of Victoria No 2 which resulted in the proceedng being struck out as an abuse of process (which I reviewed here).

Facts

The relevant conduct upon which the court exercised its discretion is set out at [5]:

(a) the issuing of the proceeding on 24 December 2008 in the name of Dr Cohen without obtaining his instructions or authorisation to do so;

(b) the maintenance of the claim (for nearly two years) in the name of Dr Cohen without any communication to him advising that he was the named representative plaintiff and therefore the subject of a number of obligations including that imposed by s 33ZD of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic);

(c) the incurring of a number of costs orders against Dr Cohen – none of which were brought to his attention;

(d) the making of an allegation in the statement of claim central to Dr Cohen’s “claim” which, upon any reasonable investigation, was demonstrably false.

Decision

Principles

The key issues for consideration was whether there should be an award of costs against a legal practitioner acting without the authority of the client and, if so, whether to grant those costs on an indemnity rather than a party/party basis. In support of the former proposition Forrest J referred to the English  case of Fricker v Van  Glutten where his honour Read the rest of this entry »

The High Court sitting in the Queens Bench division recently rejected an application by the defendant, Modi, to order a trial on the extent to which the tweet the subject of  the action was read in jurisdiction.  The Defendant applicant argued that issue was relevant to both liabilityand damages. The  High Court ruled that numbers of readers alone was not decisive.

Facts

An expert giving evidence on behalf of Modi estimated that only 35 people viewed the message.  The Defendant argued that, as in Yousef Jameel and Dow Jones , the damage from any libel case would be so small as to be not warrent proceeding and so any case would be an abuse of the court process.

There was conflicting evidence as to extent of publication (see [19] – [ 22]). Cairns’ expert estimated the audience for the tweet to be around 100, by looking at the number of Modi’s followers in the court’s jurisdiction. While Cairn’s counsel accepted that not all of Modi’s followers would have seen the tweet directly, it was argued that some people would have received a communication of it by other means.

Decision and reasoning

Mr Justice Tugendhat found that the number of people who saw the message was only one of a number of considerations in a defamation case. He found at  [34]:

In any event, the Jameel type of abuse of process does not depend on numbers alone.  [Cairns] has resided in this jurisdiction in the past, and expects to return to live here again. There have been recent cases in which the court has declined to strike out claims based on a direct communication to a single publishee.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said Read the rest of this entry »

In two recent decisions the Victorian Supreme Court considered the issue of what is meant by genuine dispute for the purposes of setting aside a statutory demand under section 459G(1) of the Corporations Act with the Court in  Freestyle Energy Limited v Renewtek Pty Ltd finding there was a genuine dispute while in  Re LPD Corporation Pty Ltd the Court refused to set aside a statutory demand.  In the third decision, Renegade Rigging Pty Ltd v Hanlon Nominees Py Ltd, the Court considered the service of statutory demands.  These decisions which will be of use to practitioners who practice insolvency law.

LPD Corporation

In determining whether there was a genuine dispute Davies J set out the relevant principles:

1. any dispute must be a genuine dispute [3] and one which is bona fide and Read the rest of this entry »

The High Court’s decision in Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia is a useful consideration of the principles related to summary judgment applications.

FACTS

Mr Peter Spencer has conducted a vigorous campaign in the public arena and through Federal Court litigation against land clearing legislation and the attendant regulations.  A very useful summation is found at the ABC Law Report site.   He commenced proceedings against the Commonwealth in the Federal Court alleging that the restrictions imposed upon land clearing by New South Wales legislation constituted an acquisition of property. Because those laws were enacted in furtherance of an agreement with the Commonwealth such acquisition was made for the purpose of obtaining land other than on just terms and, accordingly, in breach of section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.  The primary judge dismissed Mr Spencer’s claim pursuant to Rule 31A of the Federal Court Rules, the summary judgment provisions (see pars [10] - [13]).  The Full Court  dismissed Mr Spencer’s appeal (see [14] - [16] for more detailed discussion).

ISSUES

The decision, while unanimous, was considered in separate judgments of French CJ and Gummow, that of Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ and a short judgment of Heydon J.  Rule 31A provides:

“(2) The Court may give judgment for one party against another in relation to the whole or any part of a proceeding if:
(a) the first party is defending the proceeding or that part of the proceeding; and
(b) the Court is satisfied that the other party has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding or that part of the proceeding.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a defence or a proceeding or part of a proceeding need not be:
(a) hopeless; or
(b) bound to fail;
for it to have no reasonable prospect of success.
(4) This section does not limit any powers that the Court has apart from this section.”

Per Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell

Their Honours regarded the starting point of any enquiry is, at [52], whether “..there is a “reasonable” prospect of prosecuting the proceeding, not an enquiry directed to whether a certain and concluded determination could be made that the proceeding would necessarily fail.”  The no reasonable prospect test differs from earlier rules of procedure relating to summary judgment applications where the exercise was a determination as to whether a proceeding would necessarily fail ([53]) with the test “requiring certain demonstration of the outcome of litigation, not an assessment of the prospect of its success” [54].

Their Honours in posing the question of how the expression “no reasonable prospect” should be understood Read the rest of this entry »

Two decisions of the Supreme Court last week, provide a very detailed and useful analysis regarding applications to set aside a subpoena and a summonses.  In Burchell & Anor v Hill & Ors a non party sought to set aside a subpoena issued under Rule 42A.01.    In Re Bill Express Limited (in liq) , the applicant, appealing from a decision of Gardiner AsJ,  sought to set aside a liquidator’s summons for production.

Burchell & Anor v Hill & Ors

Facts

The plaintiff issued a subpoena to the National Australia Bank Limited, a non party. The NAB objected to Read the rest of this entry »

In Blackman & Ors v Gant & Anor Vickery J considered a very interesting no case application by the Second Defendant.  This is a case that has drawn considerable press coverage, including in the Australian and the Age.

FACTS (pars 4 – 11)

The Plaintiffs are the artist Charles Blackman and his trustee, Robert Dickerson.  The Second Defendant is Peter Gant, an art dealer.  Gant originally supplied three works of art to a Helen Stewart , another art dealer, together with two valuations of the works.  She was the former First Defendant.  Stewart sold the works to a a Robert Blanche, giving him a copy of the valuations.  The evidence is that Blanche relied upon one of the valuations when purchasing the works and used the other for insurance valuation purposes.  When, later, Blanche was advised that the works were not authentic he returned them to Stewart who refunded his money.  Stewart then returned the works to Gant.   The Second Defendant maintains the works are authentic.  The issue before Vickery J was confined to the Second Defendant’s no case application.

ANALYSIS

The Plaintiffs claim, at [12], that the valuations impliedly represent that the works were authentic and consequently a breach of Read the rest of this entry »

Its raining Calderbank offers!  In three separate and unrelated decisions last week  the Supreme Court considered both the body of relaw relating to Calderbank Offers and their application to the facts.

Sanelli v Sanelli & Anor

Mukhtar AsJ in Sanelli considered a very full throated application by the plaintiff for indemnity costs.  At [29] Mukhtar AsJ Read the rest of this entry »

In Bernstein v Georgakakis & Anor Beach J analysed an application for removal of a caveat placed in August 2005 over property owned by a sole proprietor but arising out of an agreement between her husband and someone he was in business with.   It is a useful judgment in both restating principles but in dealing with equitable interests in this (unusual) fact situation.

His Honour sets out the principles at [5] & [6] regarding the principles applicable in removing caveats under section 90(3) of the TLA, namely:

• it is broadly analogous to determination of interlocutoryinjunctions – the power is discretionary;
• the caveator has the onus of establishing there is a serious question to be tried that he has an interest in the land; and
  
• the balance of convenience favours maintenance of the caveat until trial;

The evidence

The agreement, reproduced at [7], in this case is exhibit A as an example of what to avoid when seeking to make a claim for an equitable right over property. The agreement seemed to relate to an agreement between the Plaintiff/sole proprietor’s husband and a putative business partner regarding purchase of shares in a pet food business.  His Honour forensically analysed the many deficiencies in the agreement, at [17] – [26].  The first observation made was that it consisted of 5 recitals and no operative clauses. The problems included the agreement:

• requiring the husband to pay $3 million for 15% share in a company that had not been established at the time of the agreement;
• referring to the parties a creditor and debtor respectively.  Hardly consistent with an investment;
• in one part limiting the interest to $3 million, at another recital registering the interest for not less than $3million.

Unusually in such applications the deponents were cross examined and his Honour found that that sole proprietor never knew of this agreement.  In examining the enforceability of the agreement Read the rest of this entry »