Melewar Steel Ventures Limited v ANZ Nominees Limited; Terpu v ANZ Nominees Limited [2008] NSWSC 345

Melewar Steel Ventures Limited v ANZ Nominees Limited; Terpu v ANZ Nominees Limited [2008] NSWSC 345

There is a serious question to be tried as to misleading and deceptive conduct by Opes, but not as to fraud or breach of fiduciary duty. However, the appropriate remedy, if plaintiffs succeed, would be in damages; continuing injunctions is not justified as damages are sufficient and balance of convenience favours refusal. There is insufficient evidence to show that the ANZ Bank or Nominees had relevant notice to defeat bona fide purchaser status.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Equity Interlocutory Application / Application for Continuation of Interlocutory Injunctions
Outcome
Application for continuation of interlocutory injunctions refused.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'shares and Securities' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty']
['equity'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'shares and Securities' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Interlocutory Application / Application for Continuation of Interlocutory Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there is a serious question to be tried regarding misleading and deceptive conduct, fraud or breach of fiduciary duty' 'Whether damages would be a sufficient remedy for the plaintiffs' 'Whether injunctive relief should be continued in respect of shares transferred under contested agreements' 'Whether ANZ Bank or Nominees had notice of plaintiffs’ equitable interests']

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious question to be tried as to misleading and deceptive conduct by Opes, but not as to fraud or breach of fiduciary duty. However, the appropriate remedy, if plaintiffs succeed, would be in damages; continuing injunctions is not justified as damages are sufficient and balance of convenience favours refusal. There is insufficient evidence to show that the ANZ Bank or Nominees had relevant notice to defeat bona fide purchaser status.

Court Disposition

Application for continuation of interlocutory injunctions refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for continuation of interlocutory injunctions in both matters dismissed' 'Exhibits to be returned to parties for the final hearing' 'Notice of motion for cross-vesting to Federal Court stood over with leave to restore after pleadings' 'Matters to proceed on pleadings; plaintiffs to file and serve...