Isak Constructions v Faress [2005] NSWSC 679

Isak Constructions v Faress [2005] NSWSC 679

The Court has jurisdiction under sections 240 and 241 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the relevant Supreme Court Rules to grant leave for an intervenor to cease exercising previously granted leave to act on behalf of a company in litigation, even after the main proceedings have been dismissed, so long as all interested parties have notice and consent or do not oppose.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Isak Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff: Mikko Isakka; First Defendant/applicant: Adib Faress; Second Defendant: Emerald Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Faress Fares; Fourth Defendant: Wen Kai Tan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Regarding Company Management/shareholder Dispute / Notice of Motion to Withdraw as Intervenor After Proceedings Dismissed
Outcome
Order granted as sought; Court affirms jurisdiction to make such orders.
Legal Topics
Court's Jurisdiction Post Dismissal, Application to Withdraw Leave to Intervene, Filing and Determination of Motions in Dismissed Proceedings
Corporations Law Civil Procedure Court's Jurisdiction Post Dismissal Application to Withdraw Leave to Intervene Filing and Determination of Motions in Dismissed Proceedings

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isak Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff

Mikko Isakka

Second Plaintiff

Adib Faress

First Defendant/applicant

Emerald Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Faress Fares

Third Defendant

Wen Kai Tan

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings Regarding Company Management/shareholder Dispute / Notice of Motion to Withdraw as Intervenor After Proceedings Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to cease to exercise previously granted leave to intervene under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 237
  2. 2 Whether a notice of motion can be filed and determined in proceedings that have been dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has jurisdiction under sections 240 and 241 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the relevant Supreme Court Rules to grant leave for an intervenor to cease exercising previously granted leave to act on behalf of a company in litigation, even after the main proceedings have been dismissed, so long as all interested parties have notice and consent or do not oppose.

Court Disposition

Order granted as sought; Court affirms jurisdiction to make such orders.

Orders

  • Order 1 in the notice of motion filed 14 June 2005 granted (leave to withdraw as intervenor in District Court proceedings on specified terms)