Beck v Weinstock [2013] HCA 15

Beck v Weinstock [2013] HCA 15

Preference shares can validly exist and be redeemed in circumstances where no ordinary shares have been issued; the rights attached to the class of shares under the company constitution are determinative, and statutory restrictions on redemption and maintenance of capital do not require the existence of ordinary shares.

Parties
Appellant: Tamar Rivqa Beck; Respondent: Amiram David Weinstock
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia, Final Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Shares, Redeemable Preference Shares, Maintenance of Capital, Company Constitution, Priority and Rights of Shareholders

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tamar Rivqa Beck

Appellant

Amiram David Weinstock

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia, Final Determination

  1. 1 Whether preference shares required ordinary shares to be issued in order to be valid
  2. 2 Whether redemption of shares was effective in the absence of ordinary shares
  3. 3 Whether redemption of redeemable preference shares in the absence of ordinary shares offends the principle of maintenance of capital

Ratio Decidendi

Preference shares can validly exist and be redeemed in circumstances where no ordinary shares have been issued; the rights attached to the class of shares under the company constitution are determinative, and statutory restrictions on redemption and maintenance of capital do not require the existence of ordinary shares.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.