Scholten v Mobilesoft Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 234

Scholten v Mobilesoft Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 234

An interlocutory injunction was granted restraining the defendants from treating the purported dismissal of 12 March 1999 as valid, as there was an arguable case that the dismissal was not properly authorised. A wider injunction restraining any future dismissal was refused due to the nature of the contract and lack of exceptions to settled equitable principles.

Parties
Plaintiff: Gregory John David Scholten; First Defendant: Mobilesoft Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Technology Ventures Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Icon Ventures Pty Limited; Fourth Defendant: Mobilesoft Consulting Pty Limited; Fifth Defendant: Thomas Craig Simms; Sixth Defendant: Brian Simms; Seventh Defendant: Brian Lindsay Simms
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunctions / Interlocutory
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunctions in part granted and in part refused.
Legal Topics
Directors' Authority, Management and Administration, Oppression of Minority Shareholders, Injunctions, Enforcement of Contracts
Corporations Equity Directors' Authority Management and Administration Oppression of Minority Shareholders Injunctions Enforcement of Contracts

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory John David Scholten

Plaintiff

Mobilesoft Pty Limited

First Defendant

Technology Ventures Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Icon Ventures Pty Limited

Third Defendant

Mobilesoft Consulting Pty Limited

Fourth Defendant

Thomas Craig Simms

Fifth Defendant

Brian Simms

Sixth Defendant

Brian Lindsay Simms

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunctions / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the plaintiff was validly effected by proper authority
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory injunctions should be granted restraining the defendants from treating the dismissal as valid
  3. 3 Whether a further injunction restraining any dismissal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

An interlocutory injunction was granted restraining the defendants from treating the purported dismissal of 12 March 1999 as valid, as there was an arguable case that the dismissal was not properly authorised. A wider injunction restraining any future dismissal was refused due to the nature of the contract and lack of exceptions to settled equitable principles.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunctions in part granted and in part refused.

Orders

  • An injunction restraining the defendants from treating the purported dismissal of 12 March 1999 as valid is granted.
  • The application for a broader injunction restraining any dismissal is refused.