19 Dec 2011
Leave was granted because the plaintiff's delay was explained by a mistake upon legal advice of the type contemplated by s4(7) (mistake of law other than the subsection) and there was no evidence that the defendant had been materially prejudiced by the delay; defendant's withdrawal of opposition reinforced that conclusion.
1 Jun 2011
The High Court found the Family Court judge made a material error by concluding no agreement existed; there was sufficient evidence to infer intent to contract and the appeal is allowed, but because there is inadequate evidence about whether respondent received independent advice (and whether she understood the effect) the matter is remitted for rehearing to determine material prejudice and independence of advice; parties should provide evidence including from the advising solicitor and agree waiver of privilege or the Court will draw inferences.
31 Jul 2009
On the balance of probabilities the court found the contraventions of s37 arose solely from failures to comply with the Exemption Notice and that none of the three objectors demonstrated material prejudice causally linked to those failures; accordingly relief orders under s37AI had to be made for all three defendants, with the caveat that any separate breach of s37A would not be validated by the s37AI relief.
31 Oct 2008
Relief was denied for the objecting investors because the applicant failed to satisfy the Court on the balance of probabilities that all substantive disclosure had in fact been received by the objectors; the InvestorNet 'confirmation' mechanism was insufficient to establish receipt as defined in the Act and left a real doubt about receipt, and accordingly it was not "just and equitable" to grant relief under s37AH for those objectors (relief granted for certain investors who did not object or withdrew objections).