In the matter of CRC Civil & Drainage Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1085

In the matter of CRC Civil & Drainage Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1085

Consent orders for compulsory purchase did not constitute a concession of oppression, nor did they create an entitlement to costs or interest where neither was pleaded, reserved, or litigated. The plaintiff was not entitled to interest on the purchase price for shares, and parties should bear their own costs as the proceeding was resolved by consent without litigation on the merits.

Parties
Plaintiff: Russell William Bailey; First Defendant: CRC Civil & Drainage Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Russell Leslie Clarke; Third Defendant: Craig Robert Cooke
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Amended Interlocutory Process, Costs and Interest Determination
Outcome
Amended interlocutory process dismissed
Legal Topics
Consent Orders, Costs, Interest, Compulsory Purchase of Shares, Oppression Remedy
Corporations Law Civil Procedure Consent Orders Costs Interest Compulsory Purchase of Shares Oppression Remedy

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Russell William Bailey

Plaintiff

CRC Civil & Drainage Pty Limited

First Defendant

Russell Leslie Clarke

Second Defendant

Craig Robert Cooke

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Amended Interlocutory Process, Costs and Interest Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether consent orders under Corporations Act s 233 constitute a concession of oppressive conduct
  2. 2 Whether interest should be awarded on purchase price where not pleaded or reserved
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded in proceedings resolved by consent without litigation

Ratio Decidendi

Consent orders for compulsory purchase did not constitute a concession of oppression, nor did they create an entitlement to costs or interest where neither was pleaded, reserved, or litigated. The plaintiff was not entitled to interest on the purchase price for shares, and parties should bear their own costs as the proceeding was resolved by consent without litigation on the merits.

Court Disposition

Amended interlocutory process dismissed

Orders

  • There is to be no order as to the costs of the proceedings to the intent that each party bear its own costs