Qiao, Qi v Chen, Yuan Feng & Ors [1997] FCA 1580

Qiao, Qi v Chen, Yuan Feng & Ors [1997] FCA 1580

The strike out application failed because the evidence could enable a court at trial to conclude that the applicant had been issued a sealed share certificate and allotted shares, and Re Independent Quarries Pty Limited supported standing in closely analogous circumstances; therefore the respondents did not show that the applicant's s 260 claim was manifestly untenable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 1997
Procedural Posture
Corporations Law Proceeding; Application to Strike Out Parts of the Statement of Claim Seeking Relief Under S 260 of the Corporations Law / Interlocutory Strike Out Application Under Federal Court Rules O 16 R 11
Outcome
Strike out application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Application' 'standing Under S 260 of the Corporations Law' 'company Membership' 'share Certificates and Share Register']

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

Corporations Law Proceeding; Application to Strike Out Parts of the Statement of Claim Seeking Relief Under S 260 of the Corporations Law / Interlocutory Strike Out Application Under Federal Court Rules O 16 R 11

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's claim for relief under s 260 of the Corporations Law was so manifestly untenable that it could not succeed." "Whether a person whose name is not entered on the company's share register may have standing as a member where a share certificate in that person's name was sealed by the company and given to him."]

Ratio Decidendi

The strike out application failed because the evidence could enable a court at trial to conclude that the applicant had been issued a sealed share certificate and allotted shares, and Re Independent Quarries Pty Limited supported standing in closely analogous circumstances; therefore the respondents did not show that the applicant's s 260 claim was manifestly untenable.

Court Disposition

Strike out application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The first and second respondents pay the applicant's costs of the strikeout application."]