Wheeler v Wheeler Bros Transport Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 725

Wheeler v Wheeler Bros Transport Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 725

Because the Heads of Agreement was silent as to the consideration for the share transfers, neither Kevin and Kristina's proposed $12,016 consideration nor Noel and Neville's proposed $62,554.31 per share was justified. The transaction having settled on a neutral description of consideration, the motion was to be dismissed and, since neither side's position was sustained, there was to be no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Corporations Proceeding for Oppression Relief or Winding Up; Motion for Specific Performance and Costs / Reasons for Judgment on Costs of a Motion After Settlement of the Transaction
Outcome
The motion was dismissed; the application and cross claim were dismissed; there was no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['oppression Relief' 'winding Up' 'share Purchase Order' 'heads of Agreement' 'specific Performance' 'costs of Motion']
['corporations Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['oppression Relief' 'winding Up' 'share Purchase Order' 'heads of Agreement' 'specific Performance' 'costs of Motion']

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

Corporations Proceeding for Oppression Relief or Winding Up; Motion for Specific Performance and Costs / Reasons for Judgment on Costs of a Motion After Settlement of the Transaction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the motion should be dismissed after the parties settled the transaction on 31 March 1999.' 'What costs order should be made for the motion, including the costs argument about the motion.' 'Whether either side was entitled to insist on its proposed dollar amount as the consideration to be shown in the share transfer forms.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Heads of Agreement was silent as to the consideration for the share transfers, neither Kevin and Kristina's proposed $12,016 consideration nor Noel and Neville's proposed $62,554.31 per share was justified. The transaction having settled on a neutral description of consideration, the motion was to be dismissed and, since neither side's position was sustained, there was to be no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

The motion was dismissed; the application and cross claim were dismissed; there was no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The motion brought by notice of motion filed on 23 March 1999 be dismissed.' 'The application and cross claim be dismissed.' 'There is no order as to the costs of the motion or of the application or cross claim, to the intent that the parties bear their own respective costs.']