Boniel v Camilleri - [1999] NSWSC 174

CITATION: Boniel v. Camilleri [1999] NSWSC 174

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): 4985/98

HEARING DATE(S): 9 March 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 March 1999

PARTIES :

Lorna Boniel (P)
Charles Camilleri (D1)
Paul Camilleri (D2)
John Camilleri (D3)
Camilleri Stockfeeds Pty. Limited ACN 000 499 918 (D4)

JUDGMENT OF: Master McLaughlin

COUNSEL :

SOLICITORS: McCabes (P)
Church & Grace (D)

CATCHWORDS:

ACTS CITED: Corporations Law

DECISION:

- 6 -
SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
MASTER McLAUGHLIN
Tuesday, 9 March 1999.
4985/98 LORNA BONIEL -v-
CHARLES CAMILLERI & 3 ORS
1 MASTER: By notice of motion filed on 26 February 1999, the applicants (being Charles, Paul and Joseph Camilleri, the first, second and third defendants) seek substantively an order that the proceedings continue on pleadings. The plaintiff, Lorna Boniel, opposes that relief.
2 The substantive proceedings were instituted by the plaintiff on 14 December 1998 by the filing a summons. That summons sought substantive relief of the nature appropriate to what is sometimes described as an oppression suit. The relief sought in the summons includes:
1) A declaration that the affairs of the fourth defendant, Camilleri Stock Foods Pty Limited, are being conducted in a manner that is oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to and unfairly discriminatory against the plaintiff.

2) An order that the first, second and third defendants purchase the shares in the fourth defendant held by the plaintiff
3) A reference to the Master for inquiry and report upon the value of the shares in the fourth defendant at a certain specified date.

3 The plaintiff also sought alternative relief, including an order that the fourth defendant be wound up.
4 The plaintiff in opposing the present application points to the fact that the proceedings were required by Part 80(A) rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules to be instituted by summons.
5 The fact that proceedings are required by the Rules to be instituted by summons is not, of course, determinative of whether the Court should exercise the discretion given to it by Part 5 rule 11 of the Rules to order that the proceedings continue on pleadings.
6 The purpose of pleadings is to delimit the issues between the parties so that a defendant will know with precision and specificity the nature of the cause of action being asserted against it by the plaintiff.
7 In the instant case I have been taken on behalf of the plaintiff to two very extensive affidavits together with a large binder of exhibits to one of those affidavits. The exhibits alone comprise in excess of two hundred thirty pages. One of the affidavits consists of fifty pages and the other of twenty-nine pages.
8 It will be appreciated that the summons merely seeks relief. The basis upon which that relief is sought by the plaintiff must be gleaned from the evidence. My reading of the evidence to which the plaintiff has taken me in the present application clearly indicates that there is a great deal of material…

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 Boniel v Camilleri 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: [1999] NSWSC 174
Decision Date: 9 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Boniel v Camilleri, the plaintiff, Lorna Boniel, filed a summons against the defendants, Charles, Paul, and Joseph Camilleri, as well as Camilleri Stockfeeds Pty Limited, seeking relief under the Corporations Law for alleged oppressive conduct. The plaintiff requested a declaration that the company's affairs were being conducted in a manner that was oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to her, an order for the defendants to purchase her shares, and a reference to the Master for the valuation of the shares. The defendants opposed the plaintiff's summons and applied to have the case proceed on pleadings, arguing that the summons did not provide the necessary specificity regarding the basis of the claim.

The court considered the purpose of pleadings in delineating the issues between the parties and ensuring that the defendants understand the nature of the plaintiff's cause of action. The plaintiff had provided extensive affidavits and exhibits, but the court found that this material did not sufficiently indicate the specific cause of action upon which the plaintiff sought to rely. The court noted that the Corporations Law provides for different types of relief, and the plaintiff needed to clarify the specific grounds for her claim. The court concluded that it was appropriate for the case to proceed on pleadings to allow the parties to clearly understand the claims and defenses involved.

Master McLaughlin ruled that the proceedings should continue on pleadings. The court made orders for the defendants to provide the necessary pleadings, set a date for the hearing of those pleadings, and ordered that the costs of the defendants' application be borne by the defendants. The court also allowed the return of the exhibits provided by the plaintiff. This decision aimed to ensure that the defendants could adequately prepare their defense and that the plaintiff's claims would be clearly articulated, thereby facilitating a fair and efficient resolution of the dispute.

Orders