“My 1st claim was about land. I’m not estopped from bringing this one about shares!”

___

P sought orders confirming they were a shareholder in two Cos: [1]

P, D1, and D2 were siblings. The shares were part of their parent’s estate: [2]

In 1994, the parent made a will bequeathing their estate in equal parts to P, D1, and D2. In 2016, D1 obtained a grant of probate in respect of that will and transferred the shares to D1’s name: [2], [7]

D1 then refused to distribute some of the estate (including the shares): [7]

In 2018, P brought s66G proceedings re real property co-owned by the siblings, bequeathed to them by the parent. Those were finalised by consent: [8], [31], [32]

P accepted in XX that it would have been neater if P claimed the shares in the 2018 litigation, but noted that D1 has promised to transfer the shares a number of times: [12], [13]

From ~2016, after the parent’s death, the parties’ lawyers exchanged correspondence regarding the real property and the shares: [21] – [31]

In that corro, D1 said the shares would be transferred to P in accordance with the will: [29], [30]

Later in 2023, D1 said P pressed no further claim on the estate after the 2018 property litigation and did not seek the shares; and also said an Anshun estoppel arose: [36]

P denied this, and in 2024 brought these proceedings: [36]

P resisted the Anshun estoppel argument on the basis the 2018 proceedings related to specific real property, and not the parent’s estate generally: [37]

The Court considered the relevant law including that an Anshun estoppel arises when “the matter relied upon in the second action was so relevant to the subject matter of the first action that it would have been unreasonable not to rely on it.”: [40]

Importantly, an estoppel does not necessarily arise because material *could* have been considered in the first claim. What is required is that it *should*: [41]

P showed the shares’ status was not in dispute at the time of the 2018 proceedings. D1’s lawyers had indicated the share transfer was imminent: [48]

The Ds pointed to P accepting in XX that it would have been “easier” had the 2018 proceedings dealt with the shares. The Court considered this evidence was informed by 2025 hindsight: [51], [52]

The Court found there was no Anshun estoppel as: (i) ownership of the real property had passed at the time of the 2018 proceedings, meaning they did not concern the estate but a co-owners dispute [53]; (ii) at the time of 2018 proceedings, D1 had promised the share transfer would occur: [54]; and (iii) there is a strong public interest in holding an executor to their duties: [55]

Nor did the Court find the application was an abuse of process: [57] – [61]

Having, among other things, not established the Ds had suffered prejudice, nor was a delay defence successful: [72]

The defences to P’s s175 application failed.

___

Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and Gravamen on your favourite platform!

www.gravamen.com.au

P, a public company of some size, was obliged to have its accounts audited: [1]From 2016 to 2025 an auditor audited the Co’s financial reports. The auditor was qualified but not validly appointed in contravention of the Corps Act: [2]P sought a declaration pursuant to s1322(4) that the purported appointment of the auditor was not invalid: [3](Importantly, the order sought was that the appointment be declared not invalid pursuant to a certain section that would otherwise cause it to be invalid; rather than a declaration that the appointment was itself valid: [24])Broadly, a contravention of this kind can be ordered to be invalid if the mistake was (i) procedural, (ii) an honest error, (iii) and that there is no substantial injustice: [6]From around 1970 Mx A was appointed auditor. Over time “A & Co”, “A Partners”, “A Accountants etc” were appointed auditors – all of those entities related to Mx A: [11] – [14]In around 2016, Mx A died. Apparently their child, also named Mx A began work at the auditing firm: [14] – [16]Mx A, the younger, was a qualified auditor and fulfilled the role for P until early 2025, signing off similarly using a related entity: [16] – [20]In early 2025, P decided to put the role out to tender following tension between Mx A and P’s board: [21]Mx A resigned around this time, and the irregularity of their appointment as auditor was revealed: [22]There was no doubt that Mx A’s firm was retained as auditor and indeed performed the work and was paid for it: [23]The evidence tender satisfied the Court that P had a reasonable basis for suspecting the appointment was not properly made: [25]Following a consideration of the evidence, some of which evidence P’s searches of its own historical records, the Court was satisfied the potentially invalidity of the appointment was honest: [28] – [33]The Court considered shareholders and others who might be affected by the order sought and found there would be no injustice: [34] – [38]1322(4) relief is discretionary. While highlighting that the improper appointment of an order not a matter of small moment, the Court elected to exercise its discretion: [39] – [42]Following some amendments the Court made orders largely consistent with those sought by P: [50]The Court was not prepared to make orders that P and its dir complied with their duties where it appeared they had not done so: [49]___Please don't forget to follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and Gravamen on your favourite platform!

www.gravamen.com.au

James had a chance to sit down and chat with the legend, boss of Ruby Assembly, and all-round all-star Iolanthe Gabrie on her podcast Real Ambition in June 2025.

Together they get deep on branding, Rory Sutherland, and contemporary horror films. Check it out!

You can find Iolanthe's podcast here: https://open.spotify.com/show/3fgIdiaiSxD4F8iZO7xgXo

James was lucky enough to sit down and chat with the legendary leader of Lawyers Weekly, Jerome Doraisamy in 2025 and had an in-depth conversation and life, law, and where Gravamen is still a side-hustle...

You can find a link here https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/podcast/42265-the-boutique-lawyer-show-unique-branding-charitable-donations-and-the-firm-as-a-side-hustle?utm_source=LawyersWeekly&utm_campaign=05_06_2025&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Boutique-Podcast&utm_emailID=55716e27c79db04faaa6ed1f3d3988938ab8fa86ca99f7fc2679bf363ed418c8

“You can’t sue in the company’s shoes. You’re not coming in good faith!”

___

ShopCo had two 50% shareholders, P and D. Each of P and D were Cos. P’s dir and D’s dir were the dirs of ShopCo. ShopCo owned a retail centre with a possible value of ~$53m: [2], [3], [57]

The dirs had a falling out: [3]

D provided property services to ShopCo, with P’s knowledge The arrangement was longstanding, but not reduced to writing: [5]

Some of the services D provided were managing tenants, negotiating leases, collecting rent etc for ShopCo: [6]

P alleged this work was real estate agent work and, as D was not a real estate agent, any commission should be repaid to ShopCo as a debt: [7] - [9]

P sought leave to bring a claim pursuant to s237 leave to sue D for ~$700K it received on the above basis: [11], [12]Derivative action criteria (a) (will the Co bring the claim?), (d) (is there a serious question?), and (e) (notice requirements) were all met: [15]

It remained for the Court to consider (b) (good faith), and (c) (best interests of ShopCo): [15]

(There is, with respect, a useful summary of some relevant derivative actions principles at [18] - [29])

P’s dir and D’s dir ran similar developments together in the past. Their enmity appeared to arise from disagreements about other projects: [45], [46]

Attempts were made by P and P’s dir to cause ShopCo to pursue its alleged claims against D. Those attempts failed: [47], [48]

In relation to the best interests test, the Court considered no decision was necessary due to a conclusion P was not coming in good faith: [61]

In doing so, the Court considered the proportionality of the sum potentially claimed from D (~$700K) alongside the possibility of some costs being unrecoverable in any action (due to not being real estate agent work): [59]

In considering good faith, the Court noted a successful applicant must show (a) honest belief in the cause of action’s prospects, and (b) an absence of collateral purpose: [62]

The Court gave 11 reasons (or perhaps up to 13: [66], [67]) for finding P did not come in good faith.Those included: (i) P put forward no basis for P’s belief in the prospects of the claim, nor any legal advice on that point, (ii) there were real risks in the proceedings, (iii) a strong argument that D provided services at cost (i.e. for no benefit) was not addressed by P, (iv) the cost estimate of the proposed litigation was $500K for a possible $700K benefit, and (v) there was no suggestion of any defect in the services provided by D: [65]

P’s proposed course would see $500K in costs for a $700K return that would arise only if P’s submission that ALL work done by D was “real estate agent work” succeeded. A commercial return required complete success for P. This pointed away from good faith: [67]

Having found the P did not meet the good faith requirement, leave was not granted: [72]

___

Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and Gravamen on your favourite platform!

#auslaw #coffeeandacasenote

www.gravamen.com.au

“Don’t call the meeting to sell those shares!”

___

P was a shareholder in D1. D1 owned Techshares, shares in TechCo: [1]

D1 did not trade. Its purpose was holding Techshares: [16] The Techshares were illiquid: [25], [26]

A GM of D1 was called proposing D1 would either (i) sell the Techshares to a specified purchaser or (ii) failing that, go into MVL: [2]

P sought injunctions restraining D1 from calling the meeting: [3]

P said: P had made a purchase offer more favourable to D1 than the proposed offer, and inadequate time had been given to consider proposal (i): [6](

An earlier injunction had been granted, restraining D1 from issuing further shares that would dilute P’s holding: [9], [10])

Following the costs of the initial part of this litigation, D1’s dirs represented that it would need funding or D1 would be placed in VA or MVL with the Techshares sold for “fire sale” prices: [19], [20], [24]

D1 hoped to obtain TechCo’s shareholder list to sell the Techshares. TechCo resisted, instead proposing Offeror: [30] - [32]

Offers were made by Offeror: [34], [36]

D1 sought TechCo’s approval to “shop” Offeror’s offer to other TechCo shareholders, but TechCo made no response: [39]

Another, apparently more attractive offer, was made by another party backed by P’s controlling mind: [42]

Interestingly, P (having changed its name, leading to brief confusion) made a further more attractive offer: [47] - [51]

The D1 dirs reviewed all offers and (including because of some opacity with P’s finances) recommended that Offeror’s (apparently less attractive) offer be accepted: [65]

P provided evidence to show it had the assets to underpin its offer: [70] - [73]

Further corro was exchanged regarding the P’s (and the P’s controlling mind’s) ability to fund the offer: [74] - [78]

The evidence put forward did not convince the Court of P’s ability to fund the offer: [79]

RE (i) the Court found no serious Q in part because P’s argument (“a summary is not sufficient. The full offer should have been disclosed”) did not ID any part of the offer not disclosed in the offer summary: [87] - [91], [97], [101]

With that, balance of convenience for (i) became irrelevant: [114]

RE (ii) and the P’s previous application re share dilution the Court was prepared to proceed as if there was a serious question to be tried: [119]

The Court found the BoC favoured a limited injunction; a short delay on the SHs’ ability to appoint a liquidator while they negotiated: [126]

The outcome would have been different if P had sought a longer, or indefinite, injunction: [127]

___

Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and Gravamen on your favourite platform!

www.gravamen.com.au

www.gravamen.com.au

“We need the Court’s help to call a meeting of the company!”

___

P sought s249G orders to call a members meeting of a Co, D1, to consider certain special resol’ns. D4 opposed the application. (D4 was a director of D1, D2, and D3.): [1]

D1, and the parties generally, were part of a larger corporate group: [2]

D2 held 599 of the 600 issues shares in D1. D3 held the other share in D1: [3]

P, D4, and another were the dirs of D2: [2]P and D4 were the dirs of D3: [3]

D1’s articles required 2 members to comprise a quorum for a general meeting. So: if either D2 or D3 was absent an EGM of D1 could not proceed: [3]

The parties litigated a dispute regarding P’s status as director of D3. D4 appealed. D4’s appeal was heard and judgment reserved at the time of these proceedings. (During which, it became common ground that the outcome of the appeal would have no moment in this application.) [8], [19], [22]

In January 2025, P convened a board meeting of D2 to consider causing an EGM of D1 to vote on causing the removal of D4 as a dir of D1: [9]

On 3 February 2025, D2’s board resolved to cause D2 to convene an EGM of D1, over D4’s objection: [10]

Later, P and D4 discussed causing D3 to attend the D1 EGM and disagreed, with D4 resisting: [11]

D4 resisted P’s causing of a D1 EGM on the basis it would “cut across” the appeal outcome: [12], [13]

On 26 February 2025 the would-be EGM of D1 was dissolved as inquorate: [14]

P commenced these proceedings, and D4 continued to resist allowing the D1 EGM to proceed before the appeal judgment was handed down: [15] - [18], [21]

(As noted: the parties came to accept the appeal would not have any bearing on the proposed EGM: [22])The P had to (i) show it was impracticable to call the meeting without the Court’s help and (ii) move the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of relief: [26] - [31]

The Court accepted that a deadlock existed in relation to P seeking to cause a quorate meeting to proceed and D4 being unwilling to cause D3 to attend the proposed EGM; and opposing the appointment of a representative of D3 to do so: [32] D4 maintained that they opposed the EGM and / or the appointment of a representative of D3 until the determination of the appeal: [33]

D4 argued holding the meeting “post-appeal” was a workable outcome: [35], [36]

The Court did not accept that its discretion ought to be exercised as D4 proposed because: (i) the appeal outcome had no moment on the EGM issue, (ii) the Court’s discretion ought to be exercised in the context of the current position and not what might happen in future, (iii) D4’s retained an ability to change their position after this litigation, and (iv) D4’s concerns could be addressed by other applications: [40]

The Court made orders largely in accordance with those sought by P, including costs: [48], [49]

“That loan was for a purpose. Pay it back!”

___

P sued natural persons and Cos. D1 was not served and D2 was bankrupt, leaving P to pursue Cos only: [9]

P’s dad spoke with D1 and D2 about an investment. P later transferred $9.2m to one of the DCos: [3], [5]

There was no written agreement: [6]

In 2017, all agreed the $9.2m would be used for property investment, that if the property bought was then sold in a year 35% would be returned, and if unsold the funds would be returned: [6]

In 2018, when the principal was not returned, the parties made a loan agreement, requiring repayment and interest: [8], [61]

Repayments were not made. P sued: [9]

P said the money was advanced to buy a specific property; and so was held in a purposive “Quistclose” trust. P said the money transferred to the other Cos was done with knowledge and so was recoverable: [11]

The Ds denied a trust and said if there was one, then the loan agreement extinguished it: [12]The Ds served no evidence: [15]

P had to prove the 2017 agreement, WITH a mutual intention that the funds would be used for a specific purpose, to be held on trust and returned if the purpose was not achieved: [21]

P never discussed the proposed sum, proposed property or properties, location, or property size: [24]

P said some docs sent after P’s dad’s the discussion were a representation that the money would be used for specific land: [29] - [31]

There was no evidence of the purchase price being referable to specific properties or of any intention to purchase a specific property: [32] - [34]

In this case, there was no intention to create a trust: [36], [41], [48], [54]

That’s because: the creation of a JV vehicle did not prove a trust creation intention [49], the potential of co-mingled funds absent a “trust account” points away from a trust [50], absence of language like “solely” or “exclusively” [51], and the parties treated the funds as loaned rather than held in trust [53]

The Court then considered IF there was a trust, was it brought to an end by the loan agreement: [55]

The Court held the loan extinguished the trust rights (if any) because (i) the loan came after and was inconsistent with a trust, (ii) the loan showed the parties abandoning the earlier agreement, and (iii) the loan’s operation saw existing rights surrendered in exchange for additional terms secured under the loan: [65]

The Court then considered the position if (a) there was a trust, and (b) that trust survived the loan: [68]

Even if both criteria were met, the Court found no basis to order recovery against the DCos: [69] - [109]

P’s claim failed. Costs followed the event: [110]

___

Please follow James d'Apice, Gravamen, and Coffee and a Case Note on your favourite platform!

www.gravamen.com.au

This is probably my favourite podcast to appear on as a guest! Another great discussion with Jordan and Nathan about life, branding, Drake v Kendrick, hourly rates, touch football results, and how to chart a principled path in professional services.

Enjoy!

You can find Jordan's and Nathan's pod here: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/challenge-the-standard-in-financial-advice/id1725733771

Nathan's site: https://www.nathanfradley.com.au/

Jordan's site: https://www.planningsolo.com.au/

www.gravamen.com.au

As part of a series of three talks together, James d'Apice recently joined eminent senior junior barrister Jonathon Dooley of Greenway Chambers to discuss the law of Corporate Oppression.

This is Jonathon's and James' first talk about the big ticket items when advising your shareholder clients whether they want to *stay* or whether they want to *go*.

The three talks they gave on this topic were:

1. Corporate oppression (this talk!)

2. Derivative actions (to be released in future)

3. Just and equitable winding up (to be released in future)

Hope this one brings you some value. As you may be able to tell, James and Jonathon had good fun presenting!

___

Jonathon's profile can be found here: https://www.greenway.com.au/jonathon-dooley/

BenchmarkTV's website is here for all of your CLE needs: https://benchtv.com.au/

And of course, James' firm Gravamen has its website is here: www.gravamen.com.au