Airpeak Pty Ltd v Jetstream Aircraft Ltd

The case of Airpeak Pty Ltd v Jetstream Aircraft Ltd involved a dispute between Airpeak and Jetstream concerning a series of transactions and agreements that included lease purchase agreements, refurbishment work, and engine maintenance. Jetstream claimed that Air Transportation, a related company, had breached its obligations under various agreements, including the Bamsky Guarantee and the loan agreement, resulting in financial loss to Jetstream. Airpeak sought to have certain paragraphs of Jetstream's cross-claim struck out on various grounds, including lack of standing and improper reliance on evidence. The court was required to determine whether Jetstream had standing under section 1324 of the Corporations Law to bring its claims and whether the paragraphs in question should be struck out.

The court found that Jetstream did have standing to bring its claims, as it was an aggrieved person under the Corporations Law. The court also held that the paragraphs in question were not improper and should not be struck out. The court noted that the allegations made in the cross-claim, if proven, would establish a prima facie case for Jetstream. The court further ordered that the security for costs provided by Airpeak should remain in place, and that additional security should be provided up to the end of discovery and inspection. The court reserved the right to determine the quantum of the security if the parties could not agree on the amount. The court also reserved costs of all motions.

The court's decision affirmed Jetstream's standing to bring its claims and dismissed Airpeak's application to strike out certain paragraphs of the cross-claim. The court also ordered that the security for costs provided by Airpeak should remain in place and that additional security should be provided up to the end of discovery and inspection. The court reserved the right to determine the quantum of the security if the parties could not agree on the amount and reserved costs of all motions. This decision provided clarity on the issues of standing and the propriety of certain evidence, and ensured that the parties would be able to proceed with the litigation without undue delay or expense.