Harris v Milfull [2002] FCAFC 442

Harris v Milfull [2002] FCAFC 442

The Court held that, given the unsettled state of the law regarding whether shareholders can recover for losses reflective of company losses, and that the claim's nature (personal versus reflective) could not be clearly resolved at the interlocutory stage, it was correct for the primary judge to refuse to strike out the applicant's claims against the second and fifth respondents. Her Honour's decision to allow the claims to proceed to trial was not attended by sufficient doubt nor would substantial injustice result; thus, leave to appeal was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders (amend Statement of Claim; Strike Out)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['appeals – Leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'shareholder Derivative Actions' 'reflective Loss' 'personal Vs Corporate Loss' 'shareholder Remedies']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['appeals – Leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'shareholder Derivative Actions' 'reflective Loss' 'personal Vs Corporate Loss' 'shareholder Remedies']

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

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders (amend Statement of Claim; Strike Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal against interlocutory orders should be granted' "Whether damages claimed by the applicant are personal or merely reflective of company's loss" 'Whether a shareholder and company can sue a third party concurrently for related conduct']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, given the unsettled state of the law regarding whether shareholders can recover for losses reflective of company losses, and that the claim's nature (personal versus reflective) could not be clearly resolved at the interlocutory stage, it was correct for the primary judge to refuse to strike out the applicant's claims against the second and fifth respondents. Her Honour's decision to allow the claims to proceed to trial was not attended by sufficient doubt nor would substantial injustice result; thus, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed with costs.']