Commonwealth Homes and Investment Company Limited v Smith [1937] HCA 73

Commonwealth Homes and Investment Company Limited v Smith [1937] HCA 73

Section 226 of the Companies Act 1892 (S.A.) rendered the allotment voidable at the applicant's option, not void. The right to repayment and removal from the register did not arise until the applicant repudiated the allotment after learning of his rights. Statute of Limitations did not bar his claim because time runs from the applicant's election to avoid.

Parties
Defendant/appellant: Commonwealth Homes and Investment Company Limited; Plaintiff/respondent: Smith
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Company/shareholder Dispute on Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (by majority), with variation of order
Legal Topics
Prospectus Requirements, Share Allotment, Statutory Interpretation, Shareholder Remedies, Statute of Limitations
Company Law Prospectus Requirements Share Allotment Statutory Interpretation Shareholder Remedies Statute of Limitations

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commonwealth Homes and Investment Company Limited

Defendant/appellant

Smith

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Company/shareholder Dispute on Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether omission of information from an abridged prospectus entitles a shareholder to rescind the contract for shares and seek repayment
  2. 2 Interpretation and effect of section 226 of the Companies Act 1892 (S.A.) regarding validity of share allotment
  3. 3 Applicability of Statute of Limitations to claim for recovery of money

Ratio Decidendi

Section 226 of the Companies Act 1892 (S.A.) rendered the allotment voidable at the applicant's option, not void. The right to repayment and removal from the register did not arise until the applicant repudiated the allotment after learning of his rights. Statute of Limitations did not bar his claim because time runs from the applicant's election to avoid.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (by majority), with variation of order

Orders

  • Register of members rectified by removing plaintiff's name as shareholder
  • Company to repay plaintiff amount paid for shares with interest