Direct Share Purchasing Corporation Pty Ltd v Australian Unity Funds Management Limited [2011] FCA 996

Direct Share Purchasing Corporation Pty Ltd v Australian Unity Funds Management Limited [2011] FCA 996

DSPC was ordered to pay Australian Unity's costs because, although there was no merits hearing, there were strong indications that Australian Unity would probably have succeeded in defending the s 1071F proceeding. Australian Unity acted reasonably in requiring investigation and further evidence before registration given its knowledge of the alleged forgery, the unitholder's opposition, and the substantial disparity between the consideration and value of the units. DSPC acted with unreasonable precipitation in commencing the proceeding, and Australian Unity was not unreasonable in declining to become a submitting defendant because the registration proceeding and the Schuurman proceeding...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Proceeding Under S 1071 F of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) Concerning Registration of Transfer of Units / Costs Determination Where the Plaintiff Sought Dismissal Without Determination of the Merits After Registration Occurred by Another Means
Outcome
The plaintiff was ordered to pay the first defendant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding.
Legal Topics
['registration of Transfer of Units' 'responsible Entity' 'just Cause to Refuse Registration' 'discontinuance or Dismissal Without Hearing on the Merits' 'costs Discretion' 'submitting Defendant']
['corporations' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['registration of Transfer of Units' 'responsible Entity' 'just Cause to Refuse Registration' 'discontinuance or Dismissal Without Hearing on the Merits' 'costs Discretion' 'submitting Defendant']

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

Proceeding Under S 1071 F of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) Concerning Registration of Transfer of Units / Costs Determination Where the Plaintiff Sought Dismissal Without Determination of the Merits After Registration Occurred by Another Means

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should pay the first defendant's costs of the proceeding, and if so to what extent." 'Whether Australian Unity had just cause to refuse or fail to register the transfer of units and would likely have successfully defended the proceeding had it gone to trial.' 'Whether Australian Unity acted unreasonably by not adopting the stance of a submitting defendant after the Schuurman defendants were joined and commenced separate proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

DSPC was ordered to pay Australian Unity's costs because, although there was no merits hearing, there were strong indications that Australian Unity would probably have succeeded in defending the s 1071F proceeding. Australian Unity acted reasonably in requiring investigation and further evidence before registration given its knowledge of the alleged forgery, the unitholder's opposition, and the substantial disparity between the consideration and value of the units. DSPC acted with unreasonable precipitation in commencing the proceeding, and Australian Unity was not unreasonable in declining to become a submitting defendant because the registration proceeding and the Schuurman proceeding...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the first defendant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff pay the first defendant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including reserved costs on a party/party basis."]