Legal Research
Cases
Bateman v Newhaven Park Stud Ltd

Bateman v Newhaven Park Stud Ltd

Case [2004] NSWSC 392 7 May 2004

Statutory Interpretation

Corporate Governance

Disclosure Obligations

Corporate Law & Governance

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
49 ACSR 454

Supreme Court

CITATION: Bateman v Newhaven Park Stud Ltd [2004] NSWSC 392

HEARING DATE(S): 05/05/04, 06/05/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 May 2004

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

DECISION: Interlocutory injunction refused

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - ASX Listing Rules - principles of interpretation - whether serious question to be tried re alleged breach where ASX states it does not adopt literal construction on which allegation of breach based - CORPORATIONS - share buy backs - whether every selective buy back entails an "offer" triggering lodgment obligation under s.254E - observations on concept of "acquisition" in buy back provisions - CORPORATIONS - meetings of members - duty to provide information with notice of meeting - whether serious qiuestion to be tried as to insufficiency of disclosure

LEGISLATION CITED: Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s.12DA
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss.233, 257, 259F, 793C, 1071B(2), 1101B(1)(d), 1324, Division 2 of Part 2J.1

CASES CITED: Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153
Bulfin v Bebarfalds Ltd (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 423
Coles Myer Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (1998) 4 VR 728
Fire and All Risk Insurance Ltd v Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd (1986) 10 ACLR 760
Fraser v NRMA Holdings Ltd (1995) 15 ACSR 590
Re George Raymond Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 531
Harman v Energy Research Group Australia Ltd (1985) 9 ACLR 897
Re The Bank of Adelaide (1979) 22 SASR 481

PARTIES :
Edmund Gregory Thomas Bateman - First Plaintiff
Abtourk (Syd No 391) Pty Limited - Second Plaintiff
Belinda Carwardine Bateman - Third Plaintiff
Charado Pty Limited - Fourth Plaintiff
Newhaven Park Stud Limited - First Defendant
Frederick John Kelly, RIchard John Kelly, John Horace Ingham, Norman Eric Napper - Second Defendants
Burst Pty Limited - Third Defendant
Braylen Pty Limited - Fourth Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3600/03

COUNSEL: Mr M B Oakes SC/Mr G K Burton - Plaintiffs
Mr R J Weber SC/Mr C Mantziaris - First Defendant and First and Fourth Second Defendants
Ms T G Middleton (Solicitor) - Second Second Defendant, Third and Fourth Defendants

SOLICITORS: Abbott Tout - Plaintiffs
Esplins - First Defendant and First and Fourth Second Defendants
Macquarie Legal Practice - Second Second Defendant, Third and Fourth Defendants

- 25 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BARRETT J

FRIDAY 7 MAY 2004

3600/03 - BATEMAN & ORS v NEWHAVEN PARK STUD LIMITED & ORS

JUDGMENT

1 The plaintiffs, Dr Bateman and persons associated with him, are members of the first defendant (which I shall call “Newhaven”), the shares in which are listed for quotation on the official list of Australian Stock Exchange Limited (or “ASX”). By their amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs claim certain relief against Newhaven, its directors and two other holders of shares in Newhaven. The claim is based on s.233 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and allegations of conduct in the affairs of Newhaven that, from the plaintiffs' point of view,…

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 Bateman v Newhaven Park Stud Ltd

Details

AGLC: Bateman v Newhaven Park Stud Ltd [2004] NSWSC 392
Case: [2004] NSWSC 392
Decision Date: 7 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bateman v Newhaven Park Stud Ltd was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Bateman, brought an action against Newhaven Park Stud Ltd, a company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), alleging breaches of the ASX Listing Rules and other corporate law obligations. The dispute centred around allegations of non-compliance with ASX rules concerning selective share buy-backs and the adequacy of disclosure provided to members prior to a meeting.

The court was tasked with determining whether there was a serious question to be tried regarding the ASX's interpretation of its Listing Rules and whether the buy-back transactions constituted an "offer" under the Corporations Act. Additionally, the court examined whether the company had fulfilled its duty to provide sufficient information to members in accordance with the Act.

The court held that there was no serious question to be tried on the ASX's interpretation of its Listing Rules, as the ASX had explicitly stated it did not adopt a literal construction of the rules that would support the plaintiff's allegations. Regarding the share buy-backs, the court found that not every selective buy-back entailed an "offer" that would trigger a lodgment obligation under section 254E of the Corporations Act. The court also concluded that there was no serious question to be tried as to the insufficiency of disclosure provided to members prior to the meeting, finding that the company had met its obligations under the Act.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs.

Orders