19 Jul 2021
Leave under s165 was declined because, although the plaintiff has arguable claims and the company will not pursue them while controlled by the respondent, the shareholder remedy under s174 is a better, more comprehensive and cost‑efficient route to achieve separation, compensation and rectification; therefore a derivative proceeding is not the appropriate course.
20 Mar 2014
Application for leave declined because applicant failed to establish a sufficiently arguable case of value to justify derivative litigation: probable recoveries were modest (estimated c. $40k–$50k), the likely costs and need for expert inquiry would exceed any recovery, the company lacked resources and would effectively require funding by the defendant director, and alternative remedies (shareholder action or liquidation) were more appropriate and in the company's interests.
27 Mar 2009
A prospective claim under s301 seeking compensation for breaches of directors' duties is a claim on behalf of the company (and its creditors generally) and not a claim in the applicant creditor's own right; therefore it does not constitute a counterclaim, set-off or cross-demand for the purposes of s290(4)(b). DFE failed to establish a sufficient evidential basis to impeach the demand and failed to prove under-value sale; application dismissed.