Hart Security Australia Pty Ltd v Boucousis & Ors [2014] NSWSC 1654

Hart Security Australia Pty Ltd v Boucousis & Ors [2014] NSWSC 1654

Mr Boucousis did not breach fiduciary or statutory duties owed to HSA, as he acted genuinely to secure the NTA contract for HSA within the constraints of the financial position, was not in relevant conflict between personal interests and his duties, and his actions in respect to ATMAAC were not aimed at diverting the opportunity away from HSA. HSA’s inability to obtain the contract was not caused by any breach but by its inability to provide the required bank guarantee. Accessory liability against HWL Ebsworth Lawyers also fails because there was no breach or contravention to which they could be accessories.

Parties
Plaintiff: Hart Security Australia Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Christian Patrick Boucousis; Second Defendant: Juan Jose Martinez t/as HWL Ebsworth Lawyers; Third Defendant: Ian Charles Awford; Fourth Defendant: John Henry Bartrop; Fifth Defendant: John Cunningham Bell; Sixth Defendant: Bryan Robert Belling; Seventh Defendant: Dennis Raymond Bluth; Eighth Defendant: Michael Anthony Bowyer; Ninth Defendant: Christopher Bruce Brierley; Tenth Defendant: Seamus John Burke; Eleventh Defendant: Steven Robert Burns; Twelfth Defendant: Duncan McKellar Campbell; Thirteenth Defendant: Kerrie Therese Chambers; Fourteenth Defendant: David Leslie Steven Clarke; Fifteenth Defendant: John Alexander Cole; Sixteenth Defendant: Sancia Catherine de Jersey; Seventeenth Defendant: Alice Mary Deboos; Eighteenth Defendant: Mary Elizabeth Digiglio; Nineteenth Defendant: Martin Murray Kivell Downing; Twentieth Defendant: Robert Charles Gardini; Twenty First Defendant: Peter James Garrett; Twenty Second Defendant: Kirston Marie Gerathy; Twenty Third Defendant: Richard Kenneth Graham; Twenty Fourth Defendant: Richard Courtney Gration; Twenty Fifth Defendant: Lawrence John Graves; Twenty Sixth Defendant: Timothy Martin Griffiths; Twenty Seventh Defendant: Julie Clarie Hamblin; Twenty Eighth Defendant: Matthew Carter Harding; Twenty Ninth Defendant: Mark Alfred Killen Harrowell; Thirtieth Defendant: Jane Elizabeth Hewitt; Thirty First Defendant: Anthony John Highfield; Thirty Second Defendant: Ashley William Holland; Thirty Third Defendant: Grant William Hummel; Thirty Fourth Defendant: Joseph Alan Hurley; Thirty Fifth Defendant: Robert Guy Johnston; Thirty Sixth Defendant: Peter Ewan Kennedy; Thirty Seventh Defendant: Sonya Anne Maree Kroon; Thirty Eighth Defendant: Simon Francis Liddy; Thirty Ninth Defendant: Norman Douglas Lyall; Fortieth Defendant: Peter Eric Mackenzie; Forty First Defendant: Nicholas John Matkovich; Forty Second Defendant: Julian Patrick McGrath; Forty Third Defendant: Robert Macpherson McGregor; Forty Fourth Defendant: Michael James Neylan; Forty Fifth Defendant: Grant William O'Grady; Forty Sixth Defendant: Brian Stuart Olliver; Forty Seventh Defendant: Lachlan Robert Paterson; Forty Eighth Defendant: Madeleine Mary Perrignon; Forty Ninth Defendant: Elisabeth Mary Frances Ritchie; Fiftieth Defendant: Robert Bruce Henry Schneider; Fifty First Defendant: Penelope Jane Snyman; Fifty Second Defendant: Elias Vasil Stephen; Fifty Third Defendant: Paul James Stephenson; Fifty Fourth Defendant: Lani Carol Sutherland; Fifty Fifth Defendant: Thomas Matthew Suttie; Fifty Sixth Defendant: Jonathan Clemenet Tapp; Fifty Seventh Defendant: Brian James Thomas; Fifty Eighth Defendant: David Michael Vaughan; Fifty Ninth Defendant: William Alexander Doug Vorbach; Sixtieth Defendant: Damien Gregory Ward; Sixty First Defendant: Mark James Webeck; Sixty Second Defendant: Danella Ann Wilmshurst; Sixty Third Defendant: Jury Ivan Wowk
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Amended Statement of Claim dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Duties, Director Duties, Conflict of Interest, Equitable Compensation

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hart Security Australia Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Christian Patrick Boucousis

First Defendant

Juan Jose Martinez t/as HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

Second Defendant

Ian Charles Awford

Third Defendant

John Henry Bartrop

Fourth Defendant

John Cunningham Bell

Fifth Defendant

Bryan Robert Belling

Sixth Defendant

Dennis Raymond Bluth

Seventh Defendant

Michael Anthony Bowyer

Eighth Defendant

Christopher Bruce Brierley

Ninth Defendant

Seamus John Burke

Tenth Defendant

Steven Robert Burns

Eleventh Defendant

Duncan McKellar Campbell

Twelfth Defendant

Kerrie Therese Chambers

Thirteenth Defendant

David Leslie Steven Clarke

Fourteenth Defendant

John Alexander Cole

Fifteenth Defendant

Sancia Catherine de Jersey

Sixteenth Defendant

Alice Mary Deboos

Seventeenth Defendant

Mary Elizabeth Digiglio

Eighteenth Defendant

Martin Murray Kivell Downing

Nineteenth Defendant

Robert Charles Gardini

Twentieth Defendant

Peter James Garrett

Twenty First Defendant

Kirston Marie Gerathy

Twenty Second Defendant

Richard Kenneth Graham

Twenty Third Defendant

Richard Courtney Gration

Twenty Fourth Defendant

Lawrence John Graves

Twenty Fifth Defendant

Timothy Martin Griffiths

Twenty Sixth Defendant

Julie Clarie Hamblin

Twenty Seventh Defendant

Matthew Carter Harding

Twenty Eighth Defendant

Mark Alfred Killen Harrowell

Twenty Ninth Defendant

Jane Elizabeth Hewitt

Thirtieth Defendant

Anthony John Highfield

Thirty First Defendant

Ashley William Holland

Thirty Second Defendant

Grant William Hummel

Thirty Third Defendant

Joseph Alan Hurley

Thirty Fourth Defendant

Robert Guy Johnston

Thirty Fifth Defendant

Peter Ewan Kennedy

Thirty Sixth Defendant

Sonya Anne Maree Kroon

Thirty Seventh Defendant

Simon Francis Liddy

Thirty Eighth Defendant

Norman Douglas Lyall

Thirty Ninth Defendant

Peter Eric Mackenzie

Fortieth Defendant

Nicholas John Matkovich

Forty First Defendant

Julian Patrick McGrath

Forty Second Defendant

Robert Macpherson McGregor

Forty Third Defendant

Michael James Neylan

Forty Fourth Defendant

Grant William O'Grady

Forty Fifth Defendant

Brian Stuart Olliver

Forty Sixth Defendant

Lachlan Robert Paterson

Forty Seventh Defendant

Madeleine Mary Perrignon

Forty Eighth Defendant

Elisabeth Mary Frances Ritchie

Forty Ninth Defendant

Robert Bruce Henry Schneider

Fiftieth Defendant

Penelope Jane Snyman

Fifty First Defendant

Elias Vasil Stephen

Fifty Second Defendant

Paul James Stephenson

Fifty Third Defendant

Lani Carol Sutherland

Fifty Fourth Defendant

Thomas Matthew Suttie

Fifty Fifth Defendant

Jonathan Clemenet Tapp

Fifty Sixth Defendant

Brian James Thomas

Fifty Seventh Defendant

David Michael Vaughan

Fifty Eighth Defendant

William Alexander Doug Vorbach

Fifty Ninth Defendant

Damien Gregory Ward

Sixtieth Defendant

Mark James Webeck

Sixty First Defendant

Danella Ann Wilmshurst

Sixty Second Defendant

Jury Ivan Wowk

Sixty Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Mr Boucousis breached fiduciary or statutory duties owed to HSA by attempting to divert a commercial opportunity for personal benefit
  2. 2 Whether Mr Boucousis was in a position of conflict between personal interests and his duties to HSA
  3. 3 Whether loss of commercial opportunity was caused by a breach of fiduciary duty

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Boucousis did not breach fiduciary or statutory duties owed to HSA, as he acted genuinely to secure the NTA contract for HSA within the constraints of the financial position, was not in relevant conflict between personal interests and his duties, and his actions in respect to ATMAAC were not aimed at diverting the opportunity away from HSA. HSA’s inability to obtain the contract was not caused by any breach but by its inability to provide the required bank guarantee. Accessory liability against HWL Ebsworth Lawyers also fails because there was no breach or contravention to which they could be accessories.

Court Disposition

Amended Statement of Claim dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim is dismissed.
  • Plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs of proceedings, except costs of HWL’s unsuccessful application under UCPR r 29.10.