a) Summary Brian Munro and Graham Munro (together, the plaintiffs) and their brother Royce Munro (the second defendant) were equal shareholders in the first defendant company, Catombal Investments Pty Ltd (the Company). The Company is the land owning entity for the brothers' sheep, cattle and cropping business. The brothers, who are all aged 65 and over, had tried, unsuccessfully, to agree on an arrangement for the future management of the business. By their application, the plaintiffs sought the winding up of the Company on the just and equitable ground. Brereton J found that the just and equitable ground was established, notwithstanding that the circumstances of the case do not strictly fit a recognised class of 'just and equitable' for …show more content…
As the plaintiffs together formed a majority, a number of resolutions were passed relating to the Company and other related entities including a resolution that, absent unanimous approval for the winding up of the Company, an application would be filed in the Court seeking that the Company be wound up. That application was filed on 18 April 2012. (c) Decision The plaintiffs sought an order that the Company be wound up, relying on the just and equitable ground under section 461(1)(k) of the Corporations Act. Brereton J considered the scope of the just and equitable ground, stating that although 'just and equitable' is incapable of exhaustive definition, the decided cases are recognised as falling into a number of categories, including the failure of the substratum of the company and a deadlock or disagreement in the management of the company's affairs. His Honour recognised that the circumstances of the case did not fall strictly within any of the conventional categories. However, relying on a number of authorities, his Honour made the following observations: • the enquiry is a question of fact; • the Court is not confined to exercising its discretion only where particular factual categories are made out; • the words 'just and equitable' are
There is one appellant and three respondents involved in these proceedings. Equuscorp Pty Ltd (referred to as “Equuscorp”) is the appellant. Ian Haxton, Robert Bassat and Cunningham’s Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd (referred to as “the respondents”) are the respondents. This matter was heard in the High Court of Australia in front of Chief Justice French and Judges Gummow, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell.
Did the court find specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in this case?
II. Trial Court Ruling. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim. The plaintiff’s retaliation claim went to trial, but the court excluded evidence regarding the alleged sexual harassment. The court refused to grant the plaintiff a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling.
La Trobe Capital & Mortgage Corp Ltd v Hay Property Consultants Pty Ltd (2011) 190 FCR 299
Mason, The Hon Sir A, 1988, ‘The use and abuse of precedent’, Australian Bar Review, vol. 4, no.1, pp. 93.
The process of the judging on this criteria goes like this: First, a business or organization that loses an appeal in the Us court system, they are allowed to file a petition, called a “cert petition” (Savage 981). These petitions explain in thirty pages or less the process, views, and decision of the case. These are then given to the Law Clerks, who create a “cert memo”. This is created when the Clerk rea...
all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or may they act by representatives, freely and
However, when being specified, it must be carefully done in order that it does not cause any conflict or confusion in the sense that the decision is “Constitutional”.
They gave reason to P4P, that they were understood about the efficiency, but the productivity decreasing was not employees’ fault. Beside, there was an indication that the defendant would diversify the business, instead of paying employees’ separation pay.
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
It was argued by Cheung the reference by Lord Scott in Gamlestaden is still a summary of principles derived from Re Chime Corp. It is submitted that the reading of the case of Gamlestaden as it is does not state any criteria to allow corporate relief in unfair prejudice petition but rather the decision just endorsed that the court “may make such order as it thinks fit for giving relief in respect of the matters complained of” under an unfair prejudice petition. This could be a cautious approach not to restrict the ability of the court to may make such order as it thinks fit which would not be available if a test is introduced.
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
So the concept of individual interest, changed to special interest, again to class interest and now to sufficient interest. There is no special person required to file the case. The traditional rule is that, the rights to move the Supreme Court is only available to those whose Fundamental Rights are infringed. A person, who is not interested in the subject matter of the order, has no Locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of the
Carlill the plaintiff who is the party filling the case went against the defendants who was carbolic smokeball Company due to a breach of contract.
This essay will examine the doctrine of Judicial precedent that helps form the English Legal System. It will illustrate various views that have been raised by Judges and relating cases to the use of ‘Stare decisis’ when creating precedents. In addition it will discuss how the developments in the powers of the courts now also allow them to depart from these precedents to an extent.