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.
14 Jul 2020
Leave under ss165 and 167 was granted because the applicant established a reasonable likelihood that claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of s131 and dishonest assistance/receipt have arguable merit based on contemporaneous documentation and independent expert accounting evidence, and the likely costs do not outweigh realistic relief; it was unjust for the company to bear litigation costs so s166 relief was declined.
29 Mar 2018
Court struck out plaintiffs' personal claims in contract, deceit and contractual misrepresentation as statute-barred (events accrued in 2009–2010) and struck out one cause that disclosed no tenable cause; held claims for misappropriation of company assets and breach of directors' duties are not amenable to strike-out because fiduciary/trust exception, recent events and potential restoration orders could avoid limitation bars; plaintiffs must either obtain s165 leave and pursue a derivative claim in the District Court (with s328(6) application if needed) or amend and pursue a s174 oppressive c…
21 Feb 2017
Given the prolonged history, repeated directions and the necessity for High Court processes for the likely causes of action, the District Court's unless order was properly made and non-compliance justified treating the proceedings as struck out; the High Court declined to intervene and dismissed the appeal.
16 Apr 2008
The trust deed is to be construed as requiring the transaction to occur at fair market value; the deed does not give QPAM as trustee a unilateral power to fix the consideration in circumstances of a deemed disposal such that QPAM may determine price without procedural safeguards; accordingly the fair market value is to be assessed if necessary by the court (or by an agreed/arbitral mechanism), and QPAM and the Jacobsen applicants were not entitled to summary judgment or strike-out on the construction point.