Brusa v Brusa

Case [2020] WASC 362

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   BRUSA -v- BRUSA [2020] WASC 362

CORAM:   HILL J

HEARD:   14 AUGUST 2020

DELIVERED          :   12 OCTOBER 2020

FILE NO/S:   COR 80 of 2020

BETWEEN:   PAUL BASSO BRUSA

Plaintiff

AND

CARL BASSO BRUSA

First Defendant

MARK BASSO BRUSA

Second Defendant

BRUSA PTY LTD

Third Defendant

MARIA ANITA BASSO BRUSA

Fourth Defendant

KRISTA BASSO BRUSA

Fifth Defendant


Catchwords:

Corporations law - Interlocutory injunction - Whether equitable principles apply to statutory injunction under s 1324 of Corporations Act (Cth) - Broad interlocutory relief sought by plaintiff - Whether damages are an adequate remedy

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1324

Result:

Application to discharge interlocutory injunction allowed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr M Holler & Mr G Carter
First Defendant : Mr D J Pratt & Mr L Palmos
Second Defendant : Mr D J Pratt & Mr L Palmos
Third Defendant : Mr D J Pratt & Mr L Palmos
Fourth Defendant : Mr D J Pratt & Mr L Palmos
Fifth Defendant : Mr D J Pratt & Mr L Palmos

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : My Law Firm Pty Ltd
First Defendant : Palmos Legal
Second Defendant : Palmos Legal
Third Defendant : Palmos Legal
Fourth Defendant : Palmos Legal
Fifth Defendant : Palmos Legal

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society Ltd v Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Ltd [2018] HCA 43; (2018) 265 CLR 1

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mauer-Swisse Securities Ltd [2002] NSWSC 741; (2002) 42 ACSR 605

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Parkes [2001] NSWSC 377; (2001) 38 ACSR 355

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Pegasus Leverage Options Group Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 310; (2002) 41 ACSR 561

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Sweeney [2001] NSWSC 114

Black Uhlans Inc v New South Wales Crime Commission [2002] NSWSC 1060; (2002) 12 BPR 22

Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd v Bell Resources Ltd (1984) 2 ACLC 157

Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v International Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd [2009] FCAFC 147; (2009) 180 FCR 11

CME Properties (Australia) Pty Ltd v Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd [2016] WASC 231

Emeco International Pty Ltd v O'Shea [2012] WASC 282

Fayad v Bellpac Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 755

Gore v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2017] FCAFC 13; (2017) 249 FCR 167

Leawell Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Garton Smith Trust v Watershed Premium Wines Ltd [2009] FCA 26

Mesenberg v Cord Industrial Recruiters (1996) 39 NSWLR 128

Morara Pty Ltd v Kingslane Property Investments Pty Ltd [2019] WASC 136

Pizzale v Gumina Enterprises Pty Ltd (1994) 13 WAR 88

Re Ikon Group Ltd [2015] NSWSC 980; (2015) 107 ACSR 146

Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] WASCA 76; (2017) 55 WAR 36

HILL J:

  1. On 30 June 2020, the plaintiff, Paul Basso Brusa, commenced these proceedings against his two brothers Carl and…

Continue reading Brusa v Brusa

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Brusa v Brusa [2020] WASC 362
Case
[2020] WASC 362
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Brusa v Brusa involved the plaintiff, Brusa, seeking an interlocutory injunction against the defendant, also Brusa, under section 1324 of the Corporations Act. The plaintiff alleged breaches of equitable duties by the defendant and sought broad interlocutory relief, arguing that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether equitable principles apply to statutory injunctions under section 1324 of the Corporations Act and whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff's claims. The court had to determine if the plaintiff's request for broad interlocutory relief was justified and if the statutory injunction was the appropriate remedy given the circumstances.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the application for broad interlocutory relief was not justified. The court noted that while equitable principles may inform the exercise of discretion under section 1324, they do not automatically apply. The court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that damages would not be an adequate remedy. As a result, the court discharged the orders previously made by Tottle J and invited the parties to provide submissions on the appropriate orders, including costs, of the application.

The final orders of the court were to discharge the orders previously made by Tottle J and to hear from the parties as to the appropriate orders, including costs, of the application. The judgment clarified the scope of relief available under section 1324 of the Corporations Act and the factors to be considered in determining the adequacy of damages as a remedy.

Orders

Orders of the court

73. the orders made by Tottle J on 30 June 2020 should be discharged.

74. I will hear from the parties as to the appropriate orders, including costs, of the application.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.