Fitzwood Pty Ltd v Unique Goal Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 36

Fitzwood Pty Ltd v Unique Goal Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 36

The applicant has demonstrated a serious question to be tried regarding whether the trustee had power to enter into the contract, and if so whether that power was properly exercised. Where the trustee's power is arguable and the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo, interlocutory injunction restraining settlement of the sale and payment of management fees is appropriate.

Parties
Applicant: Fitzwood Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Unique Goal Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Briaroaks Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Michael Drapac; Fourth Respondent: Pineross Property Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2000
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunction, Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted
Legal Topics
Sale of Land, Unit Trusts, Powers of Trustees, Removal of Trustees, Exchange of Contracts, Breach of Trust, Interlocutory Injunction
Contract Law Trust Law Equity Sale of Land Unit Trusts Powers of Trustees Removal of Trustees Exchange of Contracts +2 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fitzwood Pty Ltd

Applicant

Unique Goal Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Briaroaks Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Michael Drapac

Third Respondent

Pineross Property Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunction, Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trustee had power to sell Mt Alexander Road property
  2. 2 Whether trustee was removed by resolution of unit holders without a formal meeting
  3. 3 Whether parties achieved binding agreement for sale of units

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant has demonstrated a serious question to be tried regarding whether the trustee had power to enter into the contract, and if so whether that power was properly exercised. Where the trustee's power is arguable and the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo, interlocutory injunction restraining settlement of the sale and payment of management fees is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted

Orders

  • First respondent restrained from settling sale of Mount Alexander Road property pending trial
  • First respondent restrained from paying money to second respondent for management fees