Goozee v Graphic [2002] NSWSC 640

The plaintiffs failed to satisfy the statutory requirements under s.237(2)(b), (c), and (d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for leave to bring derivative proceedings. There was no serious question to be tried based on oppression arising from non-payment of dividends, no reasonable prospect of success or good faith, and no evidence that the proposed actions were in the best interests of the holding companies.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 25 July 2002
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave to Commence Derivative Actions / Interlocutory Application Disposition
Outcome: Application for leave dismissed
Legal Topics: ['oppression Remedy' 'statutory Derivative Action' 'dividends' 'winding Up' "shareholders' Rights"]

['corporations Law' 'equity'] ['oppression Remedy' 'statutory Derivative Action' 'dividends' 'winding Up' "shareholders' Rights"]

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Commence Derivative Actions / Interlocutory Application Disposition

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether leave should be granted to plaintiffs to commence derivative actions under s.237 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) on behalf of holding companies seeking winding up of their wholly owned subsidiaries under s.232' 'Whether the non-payment of dividends by subsidiaries is oppressive or contrary to the interests of members for the purposes of s.232']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for leave dismissed

Orders

['The interlocutory process by which the plaintiffs seek leave to institute derivative actions under Part 2F.1A is dismissed.']