McNeill v Hearing & Balance [2007] NSWSC 942

McNeill v Hearing & Balance [2007] NSWSC 942

The first plaintiff was a long-standing one-third shareholder involved in the audiology enterprise from its inception and had a proper, good faith purpose in seeking inspection because there was a reasonable suspicion that the trustee sold the whole trust business to an associated entity at a price derived from discounted minority-interest valuations. The second plaintiff, as a beneficiary unitholder of the trust, was entitled to access the trust records, and no basis was shown for denying that access. Because inspection and access orders were to be made, preliminary discovery was unnecessary.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 247 a of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) by Shareholder to Inspect Company Books and Application by Unitholder Beneficiary for Access to Trust Records / Ex Tempore Judgment on Amended Originating Process
Outcome
Inspection of books and access to trustee's records ordered; preliminary discovery refused; defendant to pay the costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['inspection of Company Books' 'access to Trustee Records' 'unit Trust' 'proper Purpose' 'good Faith' 'preliminary Discovery' 'sale of Trust Business at Alleged Undervalue']
['corporations' 'equity' 'trusts'] ['inspection of Company Books' 'access to Trustee Records' 'unit Trust' 'proper Purpose' 'good Faith' 'preliminary Discovery' 'sale of Trust Business at Alleged Undervalue']

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

Application Under S 247 a of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) by Shareholder to Inspect Company Books and Application by Unitholder Beneficiary for Access to Trust Records / Ex Tempore Judgment on Amended Originating Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first plaintiff, as a shareholder in the defendant trustee company, was acting in good faith and seeking inspection for a proper purpose under s 247A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).' "Whether concern that the trust business may have been sold at an undervalue to an associated entity justified inspection of the trustee company's books." 'Whether the second plaintiff, as a beneficiary unitholder of the trust, was entitled to access the books and records of the trust.' 'Whether preliminary discovery should be ordered in addition to inspection and access orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first plaintiff was a long-standing one-third shareholder involved in the audiology enterprise from its inception and had a proper, good faith purpose in seeking inspection because there was a reasonable suspicion that the trustee sold the whole trust business to an associated entity at a price derived from discounted minority-interest valuations. The second plaintiff, as a beneficiary unitholder of the trust, was entitled to access the trust records, and no basis was shown for denying that access. Because inspection and access orders were to be made, preliminary discovery was unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Inspection of books and access to trustee's records ordered; preliminary discovery refused; defendant to pay the costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['The first plaintiff is entitled to inspect the books and records of the Trustee and to take copies thereof.' 'The second plaintiff is to have access to the records of the Trust.' 'The application for preliminary discovery is refused.' 'The parties are to bring in short minutes reflecting the orders made.' 'The...