In the matter of Ten Network Holdings Limited (subject to a deed of company arrangement) (receivers and managers appointed) [2017] NSWSC 1480

In the matter of Ten Network Holdings Limited (subject to a deed of company arrangement) (receivers and managers appointed) [2017] NSWSC 1480

The circumstances did not justify deferring the hearing date, given the commercial urgency faced by the Ten group and the ability of the objecting shareholders to make a further application for deferral if substantive evidence preparation justified it. The confirmation of the hearing date appropriately balanced the just, quick and cheap resolution of the dispute with fairness to shareholders.

Parties
Plaintiffs: Mark Korda, Jennifer Nettleton and Jarrod Villani as joint and several deed administrators of Ten Network Holdings Limited (subject to a deed of company arrangement) (receivers and managers appointed) and each of the companies listed in the Schedule; Interested Person: Y Du; Interested Person: D Gubbay
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 444 GA of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Procedural Hearing Concerning Adjournment of Hearing Date
Outcome
Hearing date confirmed, with liberty to apply for further adjournment upon evidence.
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Hearing, Transfer of Shares Under Deed of Company Arrangement, Section 444 GA Application, Shareholder Objections, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Corporations Law Adjournment of Hearing Transfer of Shares Under Deed of Company Arrangement Section 444 GA Application Shareholder Objections Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Korda, Jennifer Nettleton and Jarrod Villani as joint and several deed administrators of Ten Network Holdings Limited (subject to a deed of company arrangement) (receivers and managers appointed) and each of the companies listed in the Schedule

Plaintiffs

Y Du

Interested Person

D Gubbay

Interested Person

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 444 GA of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Procedural Hearing Concerning Adjournment of Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether hearing date under s 444GA application should be deferred due to objecting shareholders' requests
  2. 2 Balance between commercial urgency and shareholders' right to be heard
  3. 3 Procedural rights of self-represented interested persons under r 2.13 Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The circumstances did not justify deferring the hearing date, given the commercial urgency faced by the Ten group and the ability of the objecting shareholders to make a further application for deferral if substantive evidence preparation justified it. The confirmation of the hearing date appropriately balanced the just, quick and cheap resolution of the dispute with fairness to shareholders.

Court Disposition

Hearing date confirmed, with liberty to apply for further adjournment upon evidence.

Orders

  • The Court confirms the hearing date (31 October 2017).
  • Leave to Mr Du and Mr Gubbay to bring a further application for deferral if further evidence preparation requires more time.