Kriketos v Eisman [2007] NSWSC 1038

Kriketos v Eisman [2007] NSWSC 1038

Applicants' claim for interlocutory relief was dismissed because there was no claim for final relief advanced by them, no serious question to be tried either on contractual or statutory (ss.232 and 233) grounds, and the delay of over seven years in seeking relief further precluded equitable intervention.

Parties
Plaintiff/first Respondent: Bill Christopher Kriketos; First Defendant/first Applicant: Marc Richard Eisman; Second Defendant/second Applicant: Stephen Morgan Matthews; Third Defendant/second Respondent: Rehab Associates Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory (dismissal of Application for Interlocutory Injunction)
Outcome
Interlocutory process of Eisman and Matthews dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Oppression, Shareholder Disputes, Delay in Seeking Equitable Relief
Equity Corporations Law Interlocutory Injunctions Oppression Shareholder Disputes Delay in Seeking Equitable Relief

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bill Christopher Kriketos

Plaintiff/first Respondent

Marc Richard Eisman

First Defendant/first Applicant

Stephen Morgan Matthews

Second Defendant/second Applicant

Rehab Associates Pty Limited

Third Defendant/second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory (dismissal of Application for Interlocutory Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants are entitled to interlocutory injunction restraining respondent from voting shares or nominating directors in Rehab Associates Pty Limited
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious question to be tried in relation to alleged breaches of a shareholders deed
  3. 3 Whether breaches of shareholders deed or related conduct by respondent are actionable under ss. 232 and 233 of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants' claim for interlocutory relief was dismissed because there was no claim for final relief advanced by them, no serious question to be tried either on contractual or statutory (ss.232 and 233) grounds, and the delay of over seven years in seeking relief further precluded equitable intervention.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory process of Eisman and Matthews dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Interlocutory process dated 6 September 2007 filed by Eisman and Matthews is dismissed with costs.