Mir v Mir (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 791

Mir v Mir (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 791

The parties’ relationship is governed by an overarching agreement, the terms of which are largely implied from conduct. All major decisions regarding the Mir Group must be taken unanimously by the principal family representatives, subject to established delegations. The evidence does not justify removal of John and Marie Mir as trustees of the J&M Trust at this stage, but the Court will make orders to resolve existing disputes and will give parties an opportunity to make submissions on the final form of the declarations, particularly concerning the extent of unanimity required. No declarations are to be made in relation to sub-partnerships at this stage.

Parties
First Plaintiff | First Cross Defendant on Cross Claim: John Mir; Second Plaintiff: John Mir Holdings Pty Ltd; Third Plaintiff: Samuel Mir; Fourth Plaintiff | Thirty Sixth Defendant: Acclaim (Australia) Pty Ltd; Fifth Plaintiff | Second Cross Defendant on Cross Claim: Marie Mir; First Defendant | Cross Claimant: Leo Mir as executor of the Estate of the late George Mir; Second Defendant | Third Cross Defendant on Cross Claim: Anthony Mir; Third Defendant: Mir Bros Unit Constructions Pty Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Mir Bros Community Planning Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Mir Bros West Side Investments Pty Ltd; Sixth Defendant: Mir Bros Residential Development Pty Ltd; Seventh Defendant: Mir Bros Rural and Urban Industries Pty Ltd; Eighth Defendant: GM Amalgamated Investments (Dulwich Hill) Pty Ltd; Ninth Defendant: JM Associated Investments (Dulwich Hill) Pty Ltd; Tenth Defendant: Demalle Corporation Pty Ltd; Eleventh Defendant: Mir Bros Enterprises Pty Ltd; Twelfth Defendant: Mir Bros Constructions Pty Ltd; Thirteenth Defendant: Southern Highlands Pastoral Pty Ltd; Fourteenth Defendant: Sheraton Homes Pty Ltd; Fifteenth Defendant: Mir Brothers Developments Pty Ltd; Sixteenth Defendant | Seventh Cross Defendant on Cross Claim: Mir Bros Trading Co Pty Ltd; Seventeenth Defendant: Samuel Mir Pty Ltd; Eighteenth Defendant | Sixth Cross Defendant on Cross Claim: Mirco Finance Pty Ltd; Nineteenth Defendant | Eighth Cross Defendant on Cross Claim: Mir Bros (Hollywood Creations) Pty Ltd; Twentieth Defendant: Mir Bros Holdings Pty Ltd; Twenty First Defendant: Mir Bros Properties Pty Ltd; Twenty Second Defendant: Mir Bros Real Estate Pty Ltd; Twenty Third Defendant | Fifth Cross Defendant on Cross Claim: Mir Bros Industries Pty Ltd; Twenty Fourth Defendant: Regot Pty Ltd; Twenty Fifth Defendant | Fourth Cross Defendant on Cross Claim: Mir Bros High Rise Apartments Pty Ltd; Twenty Sixth Defendant: Mir Group Holding Company Pty Ltd; Twenty Seventh Defendant: Mircorp (Australia) Pty Ltd; Twenty Eighth Defendant: Mir Group of Companies Pty Ltd; Twenty Ninth Defendant: Mir Group Pty Ltd; Thirtieth Defendant: Glenmore Rural Pty Ltd; Thirty First Defendant: Jedda Farm Pty Ltd; Thirty Second Defendant: Leafs Gully Farm Pty Ltd; Thirty Third Defendant: Pommier Enterprises Pty Ltd; Thirty Fourth Defendant: Mir Bros Investments Pty Ltd; Thirty Fifth Defendant: Mirage Real Estate Pty Ltd; Thirty Seventh Defendant: George Mir Holdings Pty Ltd; Thirty Eighth Defendant: Anthony Mir Holdings Pty Ltd; Thirty Ninth Defendant: Anthony Charles Mir; Fortieth Defendant: Sidney Mir; Forty First Defendant: Stephen Mir; Forty Second Defendant: David Mir; Forty Third Defendant: Mary Mir; Forty Fourth Defendant: Leo Mir
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders / Post Judgment; Finalising Declarations and Costs, Standing Over for Submissions
Outcome
Orders stood over for submissions; no immediate substantive declarations or orders beyond procedural directions; removal of trustees not ordered.
Legal Topics
Partnership Dissolution, Trusts and Trustees, Overarching Partnership Agreements, Declarations of Trust Property, Removal of Trustees, Unanimity in Control of Business Entities, Court Supervision of Trusts
Equity Commercial Law Partnership Dissolution Trusts and Trustees Overarching Partnership Agreements Declarations of Trust Property Removal of Trustees Unanimity in Control of Business Entities +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Mir

First Plaintiff | First Cross Defendant on Cross Claim

John Mir Holdings Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Samuel Mir

Third Plaintiff

Acclaim (Australia) Pty Ltd

Fourth Plaintiff | Thirty Sixth Defendant

Marie Mir

Fifth Plaintiff | Second Cross Defendant on Cross Claim

Leo Mir as executor of the Estate of the late George Mir

First Defendant | Cross Claimant

Anthony Mir

Second Defendant | Third Cross Defendant on Cross Claim

Mir Bros Unit Constructions Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Mir Bros Community Planning Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Mir Bros West Side Investments Pty Ltd

Fifth Defendant

Mir Bros Residential Development Pty Ltd

Sixth Defendant

Mir Bros Rural and Urban Industries Pty Ltd

Seventh Defendant

GM Amalgamated Investments (Dulwich Hill) Pty Ltd

Eighth Defendant

JM Associated Investments (Dulwich Hill) Pty Ltd

Ninth Defendant

Demalle Corporation Pty Ltd

Tenth Defendant

Mir Bros Enterprises Pty Ltd

Eleventh Defendant

Mir Bros Constructions Pty Ltd

Twelfth Defendant

Southern Highlands Pastoral Pty Ltd

Thirteenth Defendant

Sheraton Homes Pty Ltd

Fourteenth Defendant

Mir Brothers Developments Pty Ltd

Fifteenth Defendant

Mir Bros Trading Co Pty Ltd

Sixteenth Defendant | Seventh Cross Defendant on Cross Claim

Samuel Mir Pty Ltd

Seventeenth Defendant

Mirco Finance Pty Ltd

Eighteenth Defendant | Sixth Cross Defendant on Cross Claim

Mir Bros (Hollywood Creations) Pty Ltd

Nineteenth Defendant | Eighth Cross Defendant on Cross Claim

Mir Bros Holdings Pty Ltd

Twentieth Defendant

Mir Bros Properties Pty Ltd

Twenty First Defendant

Mir Bros Real Estate Pty Ltd

Twenty Second Defendant

Mir Bros Industries Pty Ltd

Twenty Third Defendant | Fifth Cross Defendant on Cross Claim

Regot Pty Ltd

Twenty Fourth Defendant

Mir Bros High Rise Apartments Pty Ltd

Twenty Fifth Defendant | Fourth Cross Defendant on Cross Claim

Mir Group Holding Company Pty Ltd

Twenty Sixth Defendant

Mircorp (Australia) Pty Ltd

Twenty Seventh Defendant

Mir Group of Companies Pty Ltd

Twenty Eighth Defendant

Mir Group Pty Ltd

Twenty Ninth Defendant

Glenmore Rural Pty Ltd

Thirtieth Defendant

Jedda Farm Pty Ltd

Thirty First Defendant

Leafs Gully Farm Pty Ltd

Thirty Second Defendant

Pommier Enterprises Pty Ltd

Thirty Third Defendant

Mir Bros Investments Pty Ltd

Thirty Fourth Defendant

Mirage Real Estate Pty Ltd

Thirty Fifth Defendant

George Mir Holdings Pty Ltd

Thirty Seventh Defendant

Anthony Mir Holdings Pty Ltd

Thirty Eighth Defendant

Anthony Charles Mir

Thirty Ninth Defendant

Sidney Mir

Fortieth Defendant

Stephen Mir

Forty First Defendant

David Mir

Forty Second Defendant

Mary Mir

Forty Third Defendant

Leo Mir

Forty Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Consequential Orders / Post Judgment; Finalising Declarations and Costs, Standing Over for Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an over-arching agreement exists between members of the Mir Group and its scope; under what circumstances decisions must be unanimous
  2. 2 Whether trustees of the J&M Trust should be removed
  3. 3 Whether declarations should be made concerning partnerships (sub-partnerships) within the Mir Group

Ratio Decidendi

The parties’ relationship is governed by an overarching agreement, the terms of which are largely implied from conduct. All major decisions regarding the Mir Group must be taken unanimously by the principal family representatives, subject to established delegations. The evidence does not justify removal of John and Marie Mir as trustees of the J&M Trust at this stage, but the Court will make orders to resolve existing disputes and will give parties an opportunity to make submissions on the final form of the declarations, particularly concerning the extent of unanimity required. No declarations are to be made in relation to sub-partnerships at this stage.

Court Disposition

Orders stood over for submissions; no immediate substantive declarations or orders beyond procedural directions; removal of trustees not ordered.

Orders

  • By 12 July 2024 each party is to provide to my Associate and serve on each other separately represented party proposed short minutes of order giving effect to these reasons for judgment and setting out any costs sought, with submissions not exceeding 3 pages.
  • The matter is stood over to 19 July 2024 or such other date as is agreed with my Associate.