Landrigan (Trustee) v Suters Holdings Pty Limited [2017] FCA 1455

Landrigan (Trustee) v Suters Holdings Pty Limited [2017] FCA 1455

The Court held that, although the prospective applicants had substantial information and did not need some categories to decide whether to sue, they lacked sufficient information about the dwp arrangements, valuation materials and financial information to assess possible defences and likely quantum, matters directly relevant to deciding whether to commence proceedings. They had made reasonable enquiries through correspondence and requests, and the prospective respondents were likely to have relevant documents. Discovery was therefore ordered only for categories c) from 2012, d), h) and j). Security for costs was refused because there was no evidence that the prospective applicants, two...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Preliminary Discovery and Application for Security for Costs / Preliminary Discovery Application
Outcome
Preliminary discovery granted in part; application for security for costs refused.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'security for Costs' 'oppression' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'share Valuation' 'shareholder Succession Planning']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations' 'consumer Law'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'security for Costs' 'oppression' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'share Valuation' 'shareholder Succession Planning']

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

Application for Preliminary Discovery and Application for Security for Costs / Preliminary Discovery Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the prospective applicants had sufficient information to decide whether to commence proceedings against the prospective respondents.' 'Whether the prospective applicants had made reasonable enquiries before seeking preliminary discovery.' 'Whether the prospective applicants reasonably believed the prospective respondents had or were likely to have documents directly relevant to whether they had a right to relief and that inspection would assist in deciding whether to start proceedings.' 'Whether preliminary discovery should be ordered and, if so, in which categories of documents.' 'Whether the prospective respondents should receive security for costs and expenses of giving preliminary discovery.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, although the prospective applicants had substantial information and did not need some categories to decide whether to sue, they lacked sufficient information about the dwp arrangements, valuation materials and financial information to assess possible defences and likely quantum, matters directly relevant to deciding whether to commence proceedings. They had made reasonable enquiries through correspondence and requests, and the prospective respondents were likely to have relevant documents. Discovery was therefore ordered only for categories c) from 2012, d), h) and j). Security for costs was refused because there was no evidence that the prospective applicants, two...

Court Disposition

Preliminary discovery granted in part; application for security for costs refused.

Orders

  • ['The prospective respondents must, by 14 December 2017 or such other date as the Court may order, give discovery to the prospective applicants in respect of documents in the categories described in paragraphs c) (substituting 2012 for 2010), d), h) and j) of Schedule 2 to the amended originating application filed...