Lucky v Ives [2023] FCA 1571

Lucky v Ives [2023] FCA 1571

Leave is granted to the plaintiff (one director) under s 237 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to appoint solicitors and counsel to defend the proceedings and file a cross-claim, and to conduct the Company's defence, due to deadlock between directors and the imperative to avoid default judgment. Limiting such leave would hinder the Company's interests and efficient conduct of proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Corporations Application for Leave / Interlocutory Application Leave to Defend and Instruct Solicitors
Outcome
Leave granted to plaintiff under s 237 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to take steps to defend proceedings including appointment and instruction of solicitors on behalf of Company. First respondent ordered to pay costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Defend Proceedings' 'appointment of Solicitors' 'director Deadlock' 'default Judgment']
['corporations Law'] ['leave to Defend Proceedings' 'appointment of Solicitors' 'director Deadlock' 'default Judgment']

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 Application for Leave / Interlocutory Application Leave to Defend and Instruct Solicitors

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to the plaintiff pursuant to s 237 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to take steps to defend proceedings on behalf of company' 'Whether limitation should be imposed on the scope of leave granted to the plaintiff in relation to appointment and instruction of solicitors']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave is granted to the plaintiff (one director) under s 237 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to appoint solicitors and counsel to defend the proceedings and file a cross-claim, and to conduct the Company's defence, due to deadlock between directors and the imperative to avoid default judgment. Limiting such leave would hinder the Company's interests and efficient conduct of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to plaintiff under s 237 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to take steps to defend proceedings including appointment and instruction of solicitors on behalf of Company. First respondent ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to plaintiff under s 237 to appoint Polczynski Robinson as solicitor for second respondent and to instruct counsel, file defence and cross-claim in NSD 1063 of 2021.' 'Grant leave to plaintiff to give instructions concerning Company’s defence and cross-claim until further order.' 'Order Company to pay...