In the matter of Centura Global Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1744

In the matter of Centura Global Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1744

There is a serious question to be tried as to whether the defendants are validly directors and shareholders of the Company, and the balance of convenience favours interlocutory relief to preserve the status quo and avoid disruption to the Company's business, pending an early hearing. However, Defendants should be given an opportunity to provide undertakings before relief is granted.

Parties
Plaintiff: Valentino Kovacic; First Defendant: Centura Global Holdings Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Nicholas Kalantzis; Third Defendant: Constantine Kalantzis; Fourth Defendant: Andrea Kalantzis; Fifth Defendant: Buildcon Constructions Pty Limited; Sixth Defendant: Brokers Property Holdings Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Corporations / Equity / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
Allow the Defendants an opportunity to offer appropriate undertakings before granting an interlocutory injunction.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Dispute as to Identity of Shareholders and Directors, Director's Duties
Corporations Law Equity Injunctions Dispute as to Identity of Shareholders and Directors Director's Duties

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

Parties

Valentino Kovacic

Plaintiff

Centura Global Holdings Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Nicholas Kalantzis

Second Defendant

Constantine Kalantzis

Third Defendant

Andrea Kalantzis

Fourth Defendant

Buildcon Constructions Pty Limited

Fifth Defendant

Brokers Property Holdings Pty Limited

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Corporations / Equity / Interlocutory Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Defendants are validly directors and shareholders of the Company
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory injunctive relief is warranted
  3. 3 Control and conduct of company's business pending final hearing

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious question to be tried as to whether the defendants are validly directors and shareholders of the Company, and the balance of convenience favours interlocutory relief to preserve the status quo and avoid disruption to the Company's business, pending an early hearing. However, Defendants should be given an opportunity to provide undertakings before relief is granted.

Court Disposition

Allow the Defendants an opportunity to offer appropriate undertakings before granting an interlocutory injunction.

Orders

  • Defendants offered opportunity to provide undertakings to preserve business pending early hearing; interlocutory injunction to restrain Defendants from holding out as directors or shareholders will be granted if undertakings are not provided.