CLC Corp v Cambridge Gulf Holdings NL & Ors [1997] FCA 1118

CLC Corp v Cambridge Gulf Holdings NL & Ors [1997] FCA 1118

An agreement for transfer of ten million fully-paid shares in Cambridge Gulf Exploration NL existed between the applicant, Holdings, and Penale, with Mr Conway having implied and ostensible authority. Neither illegality, stamp duty, nor champerty rendered the contract unenforceable. Specific performance was not granted due to market availability; instead, damages equal to the fair market value of the shares were awarded.

Parties
Applicant: CLC Corporation; First Respondent: Cambridge Gulf Holdings NL; Second Respondent: Penale Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Brian James Dennis Conway
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for applicant against first and second respondents for damages; specific performance refused; costs awarded; claims against third respondent reserved.
Legal Topics
Authority of Company Directors, Breach of Contract, Damages, Specific Performance, Illegality, Stamp Duty, Champerty
Contract Law Corporations Law Authority of Company Directors Breach of Contract Damages Specific Performance Illegality Stamp Duty +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 8 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CLC Corporation

Applicant

Cambridge Gulf Holdings NL

First Respondent

Penale Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Brian James Dennis Conway

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there a binding agreement for transfer of ten million shares?
  2. 2 Did Mr Conway have authority to bind Holdings or Penale?
  3. 3 Is the agreement affected by illegality?

Ratio Decidendi

An agreement for transfer of ten million fully-paid shares in Cambridge Gulf Exploration NL existed between the applicant, Holdings, and Penale, with Mr Conway having implied and ostensible authority. Neither illegality, stamp duty, nor champerty rendered the contract unenforceable. Specific performance was not granted due to market availability; instead, damages equal to the fair market value of the shares were awarded.

Court Disposition

Judgment for applicant against first and second respondents for damages; specific performance refused; costs awarded; claims against third respondent reserved.

Orders

  • First and Second Respondents to pay applicant $5,600,000.
  • First and Second Respondents to file submissions on interest award.