In the matter of OTS (Australia) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1471

In the matter of OTS (Australia) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1471

Leave was refused because the proposed supplementary oral evidence was sought at a late stage to illuminate a serious corporate opportunity allegation, while the proceeding had already moved to relief and valuation after a consent oppression declaration, and the valuers had not treated the New Zealand entity as an asset of OTS for valuation purposes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Equity Corporations List; Procedural Evidence Application / Application for Leave to Adduce Oral Evidence After a Consent Declaration That the Affairs of OTS Had Been Conducted in a Manner Oppressive of the Plaintiff, During the Relief and Valuation Phase
Outcome
Application rejected.
Legal Topics
['leave to Adduce Oral Evidence' 'oppression' 'corporate Opportunity' 'valuation' 'compulsory Purchase Order']
['corporations' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'equity'] ['leave to Adduce Oral Evidence' 'oppression' 'corporate Opportunity' 'valuation' 'compulsory Purchase Order']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Corporations List; Procedural Evidence Application / Application for Leave to Adduce Oral Evidence After a Consent Declaration That the Affairs of OTS Had Been Conducted in a Manner Oppressive of the Plaintiff, During the Relief and Valuation Phase

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to adduce oral evidence supplementing paragraph 24(c) of an affidavit sworn 22 April 2016.' 'Whether supplementary evidence should be permitted at a late stage to found an argument that the New Zealand entity represented use by the defendants, to the exclusion of the plaintiff, of a corporate opportunity that should have belonged to OTS.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the proposed supplementary oral evidence was sought at a late stage to illuminate a serious corporate opportunity allegation, while the proceeding had already moved to relief and valuation after a consent oppression declaration, and the valuers had not treated the New Zealand entity as an asset of OTS for valuation purposes.

Court Disposition

Application rejected.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave for the plaintiff to adduce oral evidence in supplementation of paragraph 24(c) of his affidavit rejected.']