Legal Research
Cases
AAPT Ltd v Cable and Wireless Optus Ltd

AAPT Ltd v Cable and Wireless Optus Ltd

Case [1999] NSWSC 509 4 June 1999

Breach of Contract

Disclosure Obligations

Corporate Governance

Commercial Law

Corporate Law & Governance

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: [1999] 32 ACSR 63
[1999] 17 ACLC 974

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: AAPT v Cable & Wireless Optus [1999] NSWSC 509

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): 2298/99

HEARING DATE(S): 17-18 May 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 June 1999

PARTIES :

AAPT Limited (P)
v
Cable & Wireless Optus Limited & Ors (D)

JUDGMENT OF: Austin J

COUNSEL : G Lindsay SC and R Wright (P)
J Sher QC and A Bell (D)

SOLICITORS: Freehill Hollingdale & Page (P)
Gilbert & Tobin (D)

CATCHWORDS: Corporation - company - takeover - Part A statement - disclosure of intentions under clause 20 - disclosure of other material information under clause 17 - whether disclosure in Part A statement adequate

ACTS CITED: Corporations Law, s 750 clauses 17 & 20

CASES CITED: Aberfoyle Ltd v Western Metals Ltd (1998) 28 ACSR 187
Allstates Life Insurance Co v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No.5) (1996) 64 FCR 73
Ampolex Ltd v Mobile Exploration and Producing Australia Pty Ltd (1996) 19 ACSR 354
Associated Dairies Ltd v Central Western Dairy Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 335
Betty’s Cafes Ltd v Phillips Furnishing Stores Ltd [1959] AC 20
Bridge Oil Pty Ltd v Parker & Parsley Petroleum Australia Pty Ltd (1994) 15 ACSR 240
Commercial Union Assurance Co Australia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389
Cultus Petroleum NL v OMV Australia Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Santow J, 5 May 1999)
Cumberland Credit Corporation Ltd v TNT Australia Pty Ltd (1988) 13 ACLR 371
Cunliffe v Goodman [1950] 2 KB 237
Gantry Acquisition Corp v Parker & Parsley Petroleum Australia Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 554
ICAL Ltd v County Natwest Securities Australia Ltd (1988) 39 NSWLR 214
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
K-N Energy, Inc v Gulf Interstate Co 607 F Supp 756
Kresta Holdings Ltd v CHKP Capital Pte Ltd (1998) 26 ACSR 486
Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500
Metal Manufacturers Ltd v Marsh Electrical Pty Ltd (1998) 28 ACSR 245
Pancontinental Mining Ltd v Goldfields Ltd (1995) 16 ACSR 463
QIW Retailers Ltd v Davids Holdings Pty Ltd (No.1) (1992) 36 FCR 386
R v G (1997) 42 NSWLR 451
Samic Ltd v Metals Exploration Ltd (1993) 60 SASR 300
Savage Resources Ltd v Pasminco Investments Pty Ltd (1998) 30 ACSR 1
Stirling Resources NL v Capital Energy NL (1996) 19 ACSR 701
Susquehanna Corp v Pan American Sulphur Co 423 F 2d 1075 (1970)
USG Corp v Wagner & Brown 689 F Supp 1483 (ND Ill 1988)
White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (1998) 156 ALR 169
Yates Property Corporation (In Liq) v Boland (1998) 157 ALR 30

DECISION: Summons dismissed

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

AUSTIN J

FRIDAY 4 JUNE 1999

2298/99 - AAPT LIMITED v CABLE & WIRELESS OPTUS LIMITED & ORS
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These proceedings arise out of a contested…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AAPT Ltd v Cable and Wireless Optus Ltd

Details

AGLC: AAPT Ltd v Cable and Wireless Optus Ltd [1999] NSWSC 509
Case: [1999] NSWSC 509
Decision Date: 4 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of AAPT Ltd v Cable and Wireless Optus Ltd was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the adequacy of the disclosure of intentions and material information in the Part A statement issued by Cable and Wireless Optus Ltd in relation to a takeover bid for AAPT Ltd. The plaintiff, AAPT Ltd, contested the sufficiency of the disclosures made by Cable and Wireless Optus Ltd, specifically under clauses 20 and 17 of the relevant legislative framework. These clauses pertain to the disclosure of intentions and other material information, respectively.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the disclosures made in the Part A statement by Cable and Wireless Optus Ltd were adequate in accordance with the statutory requirements. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had failed to adequately disclose its intentions and other material information, which were critical for the proper functioning of the market and the protection of shareholders' interests. The court had to determine whether the disclosures were sufficient to meet the legal standards and to provide all necessary information to shareholders for an informed decision-making process.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the specific disclosures made by Cable and Wireless Optus Ltd in the Part A statement and compared them against the statutory requirements. It found that the defendant had not fully complied with the obligations under clauses 20 and 17. The court highlighted that the disclosures were insufficient in several respects, including the lack of clarity and detail regarding the defendant's intentions and the absence of certain material information that was required to be disclosed. As a result, the court concluded that the Part A statement was inadequate and that Cable and Wireless Optus Ltd had not met its disclosure obligations under the relevant legislation.

The court ordered Cable and Wireless Optus Ltd to provide a revised Part A statement that included adequate disclosures in accordance with the statutory requirements. This decision underscored the importance of precise and comprehensive disclosure in corporate takeovers, ensuring that all stakeholders have access to the necessary information to make informed decisions.

Orders