22 Jul 2022
Court held that leave to pursue derivative proceedings should be granted where applicants established a prima facie case of breach of duty and unfair prejudice to minority shareholders, while striking out or dismissing claims that lacked particularity or were barred by the proper plaintiff rule.
10 Feb 2017
Leave to appeal was refused because questions (a) and (b) either did not arise on the facts or were not reasonably arguable, and question (c) rested on the incorrect premise that the plaintiff had an independent cause of action; accordingly the Court declined to exercise its discretion to grant leave and awarded costs to the respondents.
1 Sept 2011
Because receivers had been appointed for AMI and the overlapping issues (notably the legality of two loan transactions) are central to both actions, the court found exceptional circumstances to stay the derivative claims in the 1st action, to order the two actions to be tried together or consecutively by the same judge with evidence in each case standing in the other, and to vacate the fixed trial dates to prevent duplication, inconsistent findings and prejudice and to ensure efficient adjudication of all issues.
1 Sept 2011
Because receivers were appointed for AMI, the central issues (notably the legality of the two loan transactions) are core to both actions and the risk of duplication and inconsistent findings coupled with the need for efficient adjudication constitute exceptional circumstances; therefore the derivative claims in the first action must be stayed, the actions tried together or consecutively with evidence standing in both, and the fixed trial dates for the first action vacated.