19 Apr 2023
The court, on consent, limited disclosure to specified transactional documents and permitted applicants to obtain independent valuations at their own cost; it declined to compel production of current market valuations held by respondents or unfettered access to accounting software where requests were overbroad or unduly onerous, and recorded no order as to costs.
13 Apr 2022
The application for liquidation was dismissed because the respondent established a genuine and substantial dispute as to both the existence of the debt claimed and whether any debt was due and payable when the statutory demand issued; the evidence showed transfers likely represented share-purchase funds passed through Bo Si and the company's records were unreliable, making liquidation an abuse of process in these circumstances.
14 Dec 2021
Interpleader jurisdiction did not extend to determine the personal disputes between the two shareholders because only the company (Ijay) held entitlement to the funds; shareholders are not claimants to the company's assets for purposes of rules 4.57–4.64, therefore the Court declined to adjudicate the shareholder disputes in this interpleader proceeding and ordered the funds returned to the company (or the plaintiff to liaise to effect payment).
26 Nov 2018
By consent the Court ordered the resignation of director Trevor Anthony Holder, the appointment of Simon Abbot as an independent director with powers to obtain documents and assess current accounts for the relevant period, and directed payment of the independent director's reasonable fees from company funds (or from funds held by Allen & Yee if company funds are insufficient).
7 Sept 2018
Broad discovery orders were refused as overbroad and tantamount to a fishing expedition; discovery was granted only on a tailored basis directly tied to the pleaded causes of action (specific share register/transfer book entries, board resolutions/minutes relating to enumerated pleaded decisions, and financial records limited to levies in specified paragraphs); the application was otherwise premature pending defendant affidavits; defendant awarded costs on a 2B basis less 10%.
5 Apr 2018
The Court awarded costs to the plaintiff against the second defendant on a category 2B scale with a 10% uplift and disbursements as claimed, rejecting the plaintiff's requested 50% uplift as excessive; the claim for costs against the adjudicated bankrupt (first defendant) is stayed by s 76 and adjourned for the Official Assignee to indicate whether the Court should exercise its discretion under s 76(2) to allow the proceeding to continue to quantify costs.
28 Nov 2017
The Court confirmed the High Court's finding that the PSAs and assignments were shams (not reflecting the parties' true intention) and that the appellant made assertive, misleading representations which induced the trustees to enter the settlement; that conduct contravened s 9 FTA, caused loss under s 43, and justified the remedy granted (voiding the agreement and repayment), so the appeal was dismissed.
5 Apr 2016
The MOA and addendum were binding on their express terms, STL performed by paying the agreed sums, the defendants' contention that the obligations were conditional on a future shareholders' agreement contradicted the written agreements, and accordingly the Court rectified the register, declared STL's and PPI Trust's entitlements and granted ancillary equitable relief and compensation under s91.
28 Feb 2013
Leave was granted because a prudent business person would pursue the companies' claims: the transfers were prima facie recoverable as company property and breaches of directors' duties, the likely recovery justified modest costs, the companies could not practically bring the action due to conflicted directors/shareholders, and the companies' interests are to be treated separately from relationship property entitlements which can be addressed independently.
10 Oct 2012
The Court granted the s179 appointment and specified inspections because the applicant demonstrated legitimate grounds for inquiry; additionally the mandatory reporting obligation under s179(3) requires the appointee to report to court, so the Court ordered a reporting deadline and permitted a short stay on enforcement to enable parties to agree a valuation and transfer of shares.