Melewar Steel Ventures Ltd v ANZ Nominees Ltd [2008] NSWSC 295

Melewar Steel Ventures Ltd v ANZ Nominees Ltd [2008] NSWSC 295

The injunction was extended because the material established a serious issue to be tried in the plaintiff's rectification claim against Opes and in its claim against the Bank and Nominees, particularly having regard to the 671B document identifying the plaintiff as beneficial owner, and the balance of convenience...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning an Application for Injunctive Relief and Rectification of an Agreement / Urgent Application for Extension of an Ex Parte Injunction
Outcome
Injunction granted restraining defendants from dealing with shares up to 4 pm on 10 April 2008.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'extension of Ex Parte Injunction' 'rectification of Agreement' 'beneficial Ownership of Shares' 'equity Financing Arrangement' 'securities Lending' 'adequacy of Damages' 'balance of Convenience' 'tracing']
['equity' 'injunctions' 'corporations' 'securities'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'extension of Ex Parte Injunction' 'rectification of Agreement' 'beneficial Ownership of Shares' 'equity Financing Arrangement' 'securities Lending' 'adequacy of Damages' 'balance of Convenience' 'tracing']

Source-derived case record

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

Equity Proceedings Concerning an Application for Injunctive Relief and Rectification of an Agreement / Urgent Application for Extension of an Ex Parte Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was a serious issue to be tried in the plaintiff's claim for rectification of the Agreement to reflect alleged retention of beneficial and economic ownership of the shares." "Whether there was a serious issue to be tried against the Bank and Nominees based on alleged notice of the plaintiff's beneficial interest in the shares." 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy if the defendants dealt with the Gindalbie shares.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured extending the restraining order for a short period.' 'Whether the shares could be identified or traced notwithstanding the CHESS system.']

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was extended because the material established a serious issue to be tried in the plaintiff's rectification claim against Opes and in its claim against the Bank and Nominees, particularly having regard to the 671B document identifying the plaintiff as beneficial owner, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the position for a short period while the parties investigated the facts further, although the Court was not sure that damages were not an adequate remedy.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted restraining defendants from dealing with shares up to 4 pm on 10 April 2008.

Orders

  • ['Upon the plaintiff through its counsel giving the usual undertaking as to damages, the defendants are restrained until 4pm on 10 April 2008 from disposing of or otherwise dealing with the shares identified in the SRN Collateral Lodgment Forms dated 11 October 2007, 26 November 2007, 31 December 2007, 10 January...