Natcomp Technology Australia Pty Limited v Graiche [2001] NSWCA 120
The evidence was insufficient to establish the respondent was either a de facto or shadow director of Amtech under s 60(1) of the Corporations Law. There was no proof the directors were accustomed to act on the respondent's instructions, nor that the respondent managed or directed Amtech's principal business or operations. The burden of proof was not met by the appellant, and the appeal failed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 30 April 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- ["director's Duties" 'de Facto Director' 'shadow Director' 'section 60(1) Corporations Law' 'personal Liability for Company Debts']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Court
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the respondent was a de facto or shadow director under s 60(1) of the Corporations Law' 'Extent of involvement necessary to be deemed a director' "Authorisation of statements by company directors about the respondent's role" 'Liability under s 588G for insolvent trading']
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence was insufficient to establish the respondent was either a de facto or shadow director of Amtech under s 60(1) of the Corporations Law. There was no proof the directors were accustomed to act on the respondent's instructions, nor that the respondent managed or directed Amtech's principal business or operations. The burden of proof was not met by the appellant, and the appeal failed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed with costs']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment