Sassine v Ray & Sons Constructions Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1135

Sassine v Ray & Sons Constructions Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1135

The interlocutory injunction was refused because no evidence was adduced establishing a serious question to be tried that there was an agreement for cancellation of the share, and, even assuming a serious question that George Sassine's exercise of voting rights in respect of the second share could be impugned, the balance of convenience did not warrant interfering with the proposed company meeting.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings in the Corporations List Concerning an Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application by the Third Defendant to Restrain the Plaintiff From Exercising Voting Rights Attached to a Share at a Company Meeting Pending Determination of the Cross Claim
Outcome
Interlocutory process dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'trusts' 'voting Rights Attached to Shares' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried']
['equity' 'corporations'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'trusts' 'voting Rights Attached to Shares' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried']

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 Proceedings in the Corporations List Concerning an Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application by the Third Defendant to Restrain the Plaintiff From Exercising Voting Rights Attached to a Share at a Company Meeting Pending Determination of the Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a serious question to be tried that George Sassine could at a final hearing be restrained from exercising the voting right attaching to the second share.' "Whether there was evidence of an agreement that Michael Sassine's share should be bought back by the company and cancelled." "Whether George Sassine's admitted trusteeship of the second share created a conflict between his duty to beneficiaries and personal interest in voting on proposed company resolutions." 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured restraining the exercise of the voting right at the proposed company meeting.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory injunction was refused because no evidence was adduced establishing a serious question to be tried that there was an agreement for cancellation of the share, and, even assuming a serious question that George Sassine's exercise of voting rights in respect of the second share could be impugned, the balance of convenience did not warrant interfering with the proposed company meeting.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory process dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory process be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the interlocutory process." 'The exhibits are kept for the file.' 'The undertaking of the third defendant to the Court of 17 July 2009 is discharged.' 'The listing of the matter in the Corporations List on 28 September 2009 is...