MANGRAVITI v TRIDEN CORPORATION LIMITED [1998] NSWCA 136

MANGRAVITI v TRIDEN CORPORATION LIMITED [1998] NSWCA 136

The application for a stay was properly refused as neither ground of appeal was strong: the s 592 Corporations Law argument was not pleaded and objections taken, while the claim for winding up for failure of substratum was not raised in the pleadings and answered by prior buy back offers and process failures. There was no error in the primary judge's or Beazley JA's discretionary decisions.

Parties
Claimant: Mangraviti; Opponent: Triden Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 1998
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Order/refusal of Stay / Court of Appeal Decision on Application
Outcome
Application refused with costs.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Costs, Winding Up, Pleadings, Minority Shareholder Remedy
Corporations Law Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Costs Winding Up Pleadings Minority Shareholder 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mangraviti

Claimant

Triden Corporation Limited

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Order/refusal of Stay / Court of Appeal Decision on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in refusing to permit argument based on s 592 of the Corporations Law where it was not pleaded
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in refusing to order winding up on just and equitable ground due to alleged failure of substratum

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay was properly refused as neither ground of appeal was strong: the s 592 Corporations Law argument was not pleaded and objections taken, while the claim for winding up for failure of substratum was not raised in the pleadings and answered by prior buy back offers and process failures. There was no error in the primary judge's or Beazley JA's discretionary decisions.

Court Disposition

Application refused with costs.

Orders

  • Application to discharge Beazley J's order refused.
  • Costs ordered against applicant.