Chief Disruption Officer Pty Ltd as Trustee for the McDonald Family Trust v Michel, in the matter of Laava ID Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 148

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for an order under rule 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that certain questions be determined separately – failure to make application before the trial date was fixed on an expedited basis – application for dispensation – principles relevant to exercise of the Court’s discretion – overarching purpose of civil practice and procedure – separate questions not ordered

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applications for security for costs against a trustee company – form of proposed security – whether proposed undertakings are an adequate form of security – whether a company the subject of an oppression action is entitled to security for costs – applications granted with security in the form of payment into Court or an irrevocable bank guarantee

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – whether a company the subject of an oppression action is entitled to payment of costs thrown away on amendment of pleadings – costs order made

David Rayment and Michael Collins appeared for the First, Second, Third and Fourth Defendants.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

In the matter of Wil Brown Management Pty Ltd and Wil Brown Pty Ltd – Brownlee Enterprises Pty Ltd v Wilmen Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 207

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to amend statement of claim – no issue of principle

CORPORATIONS – statutory derivative action – whether leave should be granted to allow applicant to bring proceedings on behalf of the two companies – where applicant is shareholder of each company – where applicant is also a beneficiary of the trust for which one of the companies acts as trustee – where applicant may also bring proceedings in capacity as beneficiary of the trust – whether probable that companies will bring proceedings themselves – whether applicant acting in good faith in seeking to bring proceedings – whether in the best interests of each company that leave be granted – whether proposed proceedings involve a serious question to be tried – where oppression under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 232 pleaded but means of redress under s 233 may not be available as assets of one company held on trust

David Rayment appeared for the Plaintiffs.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Leach v Burston [2022] FCA 87

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for strike out and/or summary dismissal of applicant’s Points of Claim (POC) – whether it is reasonably arguable that s 46PO(3) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (AHRC Act) does not preclude the applicant from pursuing proceedings in this Court – whether it is reasonably arguable that the Court has jurisdiction to determine whether respondent contravened s 94(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SD Act) – whether applicant’s claims have a reasonable prospect of success – whether it is reasonably arguable that “acts, omissions or practices” (s 46PO(3)(b) of AHRC Act) are limited to events constituting alleged sexual harassment/discrimination – whether appropriate to determine s 46PO(3) of the AHRC Act and s 94(1) of the SD Act issues in interlocutory application – where Court satisfied it is reasonably arguable that Court has jurisdiction to hear complaint with regard to s 94 of the SD Act – where claims relating to s 28G(2) of the SD Act do not disclose arguable cause of action – s 28G(2) of the SD Act claims to be summarily dismissed/struck out, but balance of claims in POC are reasonably arguable – application otherwise dismissed.

Renae Kumar appeared for the Applicant.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Jingalong Pty Ltd v Todd & Anor [2016] NSWSC 715

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — costs — conduct of first defendant brought about the litigation — settlement agreement reached between the parties — defendants ready and willing to perform obligations under settlement agreement — plaintiff failed to perform obligations under settlement agreement — settlement agreement not completed — plaintiff to pay defendants’ costs of the proceedings after the date of the settlement agreement — first defendant to pay second defendant’s costs of the hearing on costs