McCormick, C.D. v Electrum N.L. [1986] FCA 531

McCormick, C.D. v Electrum N.L. [1986] FCA 531

Although the applicant acted bona fide and raised a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience was against interlocutory relief because staying the issue of share certificates would likely have immediate, grave and potentially irremedial commercial consequences for the company, directors, shareholders and others, while other remedies might be available if the applicant's claims were ultimately established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 1986
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunctive Relief Pursuant to S.80 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Interlocutory Application; Ex Tempore Reasons for Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs reserved; expedited substantive hearing directed; non-publication order continued until the commencement of the substantive hearing.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'rights Issue of Shares' 'balance of Convenience' 'disclosure to Shareholders']
['trade Practices' 'corporations and Securities'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'rights Issue of Shares' 'balance of Convenience' 'disclosure to Shareholders']

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 Injunctive Relief Pursuant to S.80 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Interlocutory Application; Ex Tempore Reasons for Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether statements or omissions in documents concerning the respondent's rights issue were misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974." 'Whether interlocutory relief should restrain allocation or issue of shares and require further disclosure pending final determination.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting interlocutory injunctive relief despite a serious question to be tried.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant acted bona fide and raised a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience was against interlocutory relief because staying the issue of share certificates would likely have immediate, grave and potentially irremedial commercial consequences for the company, directors, shareholders and others, while other remedies might be available if the applicant's claims were ultimately established.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs reserved; expedited substantive hearing directed; non-publication order continued until the commencement of the substantive hearing.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' 'The question of costs is reserved, with liberty to the parties to apply.' 'An expedited hearing of the application is directed, and the District Registrar is to communicate with the Registrar to arrange such a hearing, if possible in Perth, as soon as possible after a directions...