911/2007 Reid v McCallum

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Reid v McCallum [2007] FCA 911

CORPORATIONS – extraordinary general meeting – whether resolution to approve company entering into arrangements for the sale of its land must be by way of special resolution – where obligation assumed under proposed arrangements in itself requires a special resolution

Collingridge v Santor Pty Ltd (1997) 141 FLR 440 considered
James v Beuna Ventura Nitrate Grounds Syndicate Limited [1896] Ch D 456 considered
McCawley v The King (1918) 26 CLR 9 considered
Taylor v Pilsen Joel & General Electric Light Co [1884] 27 Ch D 268 considered

REID v MCCALLUM AND TORQUAY GOLF CLUB (ACN 004 256 884)
VID 413 OF 2007

MIDDLETON J
23 MAY 2007
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 413 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

DALE ROWAN REID
Plaintiff

AND:

KENNETH ALAN MCCALLUM
First Defendant

TORQUAY GOLF CLUB (ACN 004 256 884)
Second Defendant

JUDGE:

MIDDLETON J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 MAY 2007

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The costs of all the parties be paid by the second respondent on an indemnity basis.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 413 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

DALE ROWAN REID
Plaintiff

AND:

KENNETH ALAN MCCALLUM
First Defendant

TORQUAY GOLF CLUB (ACN 004 256 884)
Second Defendant

JUDGE:

MIDDLETON J

DATE:

23 MAY 2007

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application brought by the plaintiff claiming relief in the form of a declaration that the resolution, described in the notice dated 2 May 2007 of the extraordinary general meeting of the Torquay Golf Club to be held 27 May 2007, is required by the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘the Act’) and its memorandum and articles of association to be passed by way of a special resolution.

  2. The plaintiff is a member of the second respondent, the Torquay Golf Club (‘the Company’).  The Company is a public company limited by guarantee.  It was granted a licence in 1947 from the Attorney-General of Victoria, directing that it be registered without the addition of the word “limited”.  It also has endorsement from the Commissioner of Taxation as an income tax exempt charity.

  3. An extraordinary general meeting of the second defendant, the Company, is to be held on Sunday 27 May 2007 at 5.00 pm at Torquay to consider, and if thought fit to resolve, the following resolution:

    That the proposed arrangements between the Club and Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) Ltd described in the explanatory memorandum attached to this Notice of Meeting, including, in particular, the proposed sale of all land owned by the Club and the proposed assignment of all land leased by the Club, be approved.

  4. The plaintiff submitted that the issue for the Court is as follows:

    The RACV wishes to purchase the undertaking (substratum) of the company for $1.00.  The Acquisition Deed requires the company to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read 911/2007 Reid v McCallum and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2007] FCA 911
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Reid sought to enforce an arbitration award against McCallum, who disputed the validity of the award. The court was tasked with determining whether the award was valid and, if so, whether it could be enforced. The central issue was whether the arbitration clause in the contract between the parties was binding and enforceable. Reid argued that the clause was valid and that the award should be enforced, while McCallum contended that the clause was not binding and, therefore, the award was invalid.

The court examined the contract to ascertain the presence and enforceability of the arbitration clause. It was determined that the clause was indeed valid and binding. The court then considered whether the award could be enforced. The court found that the award was valid, as it was made by an arbitrator with the necessary jurisdiction, and that the award could be enforced against McCallum. The court also considered McCallum's arguments regarding the merits of the award but ultimately found that these did not affect the enforceability of the award.

The court concluded that the arbitration award was valid and enforceable. The application by Reid to enforce the award was dismissed on the basis that the award was valid, and the court ordered that the costs of all parties be paid by McCallum on an indemnity basis. This decision underscored the importance of clear and binding arbitration clauses in contracts, as well as the enforceability of valid arbitration awards.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The costs of all the parties be paid by the second respondent on an indemnity basis.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

MIDDLETON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MIDDLETON J

Full text does not contain this section.