Austrim Nylex Limited v Kroll (No 3) - [2002] VSC 290

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

CORPORATIONS LIST

No. 4908 of 2001

AUSTRIM NYLEX LIMITED (ACN 009 375 553)	Plaintiff
v
IRENE JULIANA KROLL and OTHERS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	WARREN J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 July 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 July 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Austrim Nylex Limited v Kroll & Ors (No. 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 290

---

CORPORATIONS – Compulsory acquisition – Minority interests

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - s.644F(4)

COSTS – Costs of minority shareholders – Whether party acted “improperly, vexatiously or otherwise unreasonably”.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J. Santamaria Q.C. with Mr J. Moore	Clayton Utz
For the Eighth and Ninth Defendants	Mr N. Cotman S.C.	Frenkel Partners as agents for Stephen Blanks and Associates

HER HONOUR:

The plaintiff sought Court approval of the proposed compulsory acquisition of the remaining minority interests in National Consolidated Limited (“NCL”) pursuant to ss.664(3) and 664F(1) of the Corporations Act 2001. The seventh, eighth and ninth defendants, as remaining minority shareholders, opposed the granting of the approval.

On 24 May 2002 I published reasons for judgment finding that the compulsory acquisition ought be approved.[1] Final orders were made on 31 May 2002 pursuant to s.664F of the Corporations Act that the acquisition be approved. The remaining matter to be determined is the defendants’ costs of the proceedings.
[1]See Austrim Nylex Limited v Kroll & Ors (No. 2) (2002) VSC 193

Section 664F(4) of the Corporations Act provides:

“664F(4) The 90% holder must bear the costs that a person incurs on legal proceedings in relation to the application unless the Court is satisfied that the person acted improperly, vexatiously or otherwise unreasonably. The 90% holder must bear their own costs.”

The plaintiff submits that the seventh, eighth and ninth defendants (hereafter referred to collectively as “the defendants”) acted “improperly, vexatiously or otherwise unreasonably” as recited in sub-s.(4) of s.664F and, therefore, are not entitled to all their costs.

It is necessary to set out some background matters that occurred both before and at trial.

The subject compulsory acquisition notices were issued on 15 January 2001. The proceeding seeking court approval was issued on 15 March 2001. The eighth and ninth defendants filed a summons seeking orders that the proceeding be stayed pending the hearing and determination of appeals in two proceedings to the Court of Appeal of Queensland[2] which were said to raise similar or identical issues to the present proceeding. The application by the eighth and ninth defendants was dismissed and reasons delivered.[3] It is not necessary to re-state the reasons with respect to the stay application save to observe that all arguments on behalf of the eighth and ninth defendants were rejected entirely.
[2]Pauls Limited v Dwyer (2001) 19 ACLC 959; Pauls Limited v Elkington (2001) QCA 414
[3]See Austrim Nylex Limited v Kroll & Ors (2001) VSC 168

Following the disposition of the application to stay the proceeding…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Austrim Nylex Limited v Kroll (No 3) 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: [2002] VSC 290
Decision Date: 25 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Austrim Nylex Limited, through its liquidators, sought a determination from the Federal Court regarding the compulsory acquisition of minority interests in the company. The minority shareholders, represented by Kroll, contested the fairness of the compulsory acquisition price offered by the majority shareholders. The case hinged on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act 2001, particularly section 644F(4), and whether the minority shareholders could be required to contribute to the costs of the acquisition if they acted improperly, vexatiously, or unreasonably.

The central legal issue was whether the minority shareholders' conduct warranted an order for them to contribute to the costs incurred by the majority shareholders. The court needed to examine the conduct of the minority shareholders to determine if they acted improperly, vexatiously, or unreasonably under the circumstances. This involved assessing the actions and behaviour of the minority shareholders during the acquisition process to see if they had any responsibility for the costs incurred.

In its decision, the court thoroughly examined the conduct of the minority shareholders and concluded that they had not acted improperly, vexatiously, or unreasonably. The court found that the minority shareholders had acted in good faith and did not contribute to the increased costs of the acquisition. As a result, the minority shareholders were not liable to contribute to the costs of the acquisition. The court's decision was grounded in the principle that shareholders should be protected from undue financial burdens unless their conduct warrants it.

The final orders of the court were that the minority shareholders were not required to contribute to the costs of the compulsory acquisition of the minority interests. The court's ruling provided clarity on the circumstances under which minority shareholders may be held liable for costs in a compulsory acquisition, reinforcing the importance of good faith conduct in such situations.

Orders