Sellar v Lasotav Pty Ltd; In the Matter of Lasotav Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1766

Sellar v Lasotav Pty Ltd; In the Matter of Lasotav Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1766

The plaintiffs failed to establish the requirements for interlocutory injunction; there was no evidence of irreparable injury or insufficiency of damages, and financial adjustments for legal expenses could be made at final hearing; hence injunction was refused.

Parties
Plaintiff: Ian Stuart Sellar; Plaintiff: Louise Joy Sellar; First Defendant: Lasotav Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Como Marina Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: ACN 063 456 011 Pty Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Jocelyn Orbell Buskens; Fifth Defendant: Roger Buskens
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Oppression Suit / Interlocutory Application—injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction refused; application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Oppression Remedies, Minority Shareholders, Payment of Legal Expenses, Interlocutory Injunctions
Corporations Law Equity Oppression Remedies Minority Shareholders Payment of Legal Expenses Interlocutory Injunctions

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Stuart Sellar

Plaintiff

Louise Joy Sellar

Plaintiff

Lasotav Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Como Marina Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

ACN 063 456 011 Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Jocelyn Orbell Buskens

Fourth Defendant

Roger Buskens

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Oppression Suit / Interlocutory Application—injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payment of majority shareholders' legal expenses by company constitutes oppression
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory injunction restraining payment of legal expenses should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to establish the requirements for interlocutory injunction; there was no evidence of irreparable injury or insufficiency of damages, and financial adjustments for legal expenses could be made at final hearing; hence injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction refused; application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The balance of the Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiffs on 16 October 2008 be dismissed.
  • The plaintiffs pay the costs of the first, second, fourth and fifth defendants of and incidental to the relief sought in par 2 of the said Notice of Motion.