22 Feb 2010
CATLEY V WAIPA CORPORATION LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-007975
- Citation
- openlaw-27f140df_7655_4d4c_b653_aef0aa75de0b.pdf
- Court
- High Court
Leave under s165 refused because applicant failed materially to satisfy the s165(2) considerations and the prudent business person test: no reliable evidence of profits from the sale of Lots 1 and 2 to justify an account of profits (valuation evidence speculative and insufficient), the Eros loan was commercially justified and necessary such that litigation would be imprudent, pre-purchase payments were approved with independent methodology and applicant acquiesced, and alternative remedies or existing s174 proceedings are more appropriate.