Cao v Apollo Phoenix Resources Pty Ltd

In the matter of Cao v Apollo Phoenix Resources Pty Ltd, the applicant, Mr Cao, sought to have the decision to vacate his office as a director of the respondent company, Apollo Phoenix Resources Pty Ltd, rescinded. This was based on the argument that he had not received reasonable notice of the meetings in which the decision was made. The court was required to decide whether the directors of Apollo were entitled to rely on clause 9 of the company's constitution, which provides that a director automatically ceases to be a director if they are absent from board meetings for six consecutive months without special leave, to declare Mr Cao's office vacant. Additionally, the court had to determine whether Mr Cao had received reasonable notice of the meetings he did not attend.

The court found that the directors of Apollo were entitled to rely on clause 9 of the company's constitution to remove Mr Cao as a director. The court held that the provision was clear and unambiguous, and there was no evidence to suggest that it was not properly brought to Mr Cao's attention. Furthermore, the court found that Mr Cao had failed to establish that the notice provided for each board meeting was not reasonable, and that in any event, reasonable notice was given. As a result, the court dismissed Mr Cao's interlocutory application.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles. The court noted that the company's constitution provided for the automatic removal of a director who was absent from board meetings for six consecutive months without special leave. The court also noted that Mr Cao had failed to establish that he did not receive reasonable notice of the meetings he did not attend. As a result, the court held that the directors of Apollo were entitled to rely on clause 9 of the company's constitution to declare Mr Cao's office vacant.

In conclusion, the court dismissed Mr Cao's interlocutory application and ordered that he pay the respondent's costs. The court found that the directors of Apollo were entitled to rely on clause 9 of the company's constitution to remove Mr Cao as a director, and that Mr Cao had failed to establish that he did not receive reasonable notice of the meetings he did not attend. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles.