Colin Lindsay Taggert v John Matyear - [2013] NSWSC 292

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Prismex Technologies Pty Limited; Colin Lindsay Taggert v John Matyear [2013] NSWSC 292
Hearing dates: 5 & 6 February 2013
Decision date: 06 February 2013
Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Corporations List
Before: Brereton J
Decision:
Interlocutory process and writ and statement of claim dismissed with costs

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - Judgments and Orders - Amendment - slip rule - clerical error - Where minute of consent order did not accurately reflect intention of parties or order as pronounced
PROCEDURE - Judgments and Orders -UCPR r 1.12 - whether paragraph in a minute of order was an order of the court or recorded as inter partes agreement
CONTRACTS - Penalties - whether consent judgment debt can constitute a penalty - where the judgment debt exceeded maximum amount recoverable - consent judgment creates an immediate enforceable present debt - no scope for the application of the doctrine of penalties
PROCEDURE - Judgments and Orders -
Whether court has jurisdiction to decline to enforce judgment on equitable grounds
PROCEDURE - Judgments and Orders - where consent orders create obligations on both parties - Whether party seeking to enforce judgment was in default of its obligations
Legislation Cited: (Cth) Corporations Act 2001, s 237
(NSW) Supreme Court Act 1970, s 61
Cases Cited: Attwells v Marsden [2011] NSWSC 38
Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Limited [1969] RPC 41
Harvey v Hall [1873] LR 16 Eq 324
Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406
Mullins v Howell [1879] 11 Ch Div 763
Paino v Hofbauer (1988) 13 NSWLR 193
Purcell v FC Trigell Limited [1971] 1 QB 358
Ramsey v Ramsey [1983] FLC 91 - 301
Shiloh Spinners Limited v Harding [1973] AC 691
Texts Cited: Young, Croft & Smith (2009) On Equity, Lawbook Co
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties:
2006/ 258477
John Matyear (First Plaintiff)
Metage Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff)
Prismex Technologies Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Mendela Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
John Ashall (Third Defendant)
Dianne Ashall (Fourth Defendant)
Colin Lindsay Taggert (Fifth Defendant)
X-Position Pty Ltd (Sixth Defendant)
Poon Investments Pty Ltd (Seventh Defendant)
Richard Daniels (Eighth Defendant)
2012/ 311698
Taggert, Colin Lindsay (First Plaintiff)
Mendela Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff)
X-Position Pty Ltd (Third Plaintiff)
Matyear, John (First Defendant)
Metage Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
2006/ 258477
Ms J E Richards (Plaintiffs)
Mr M Ashhurst SC (Defendants)
Solicitors:
2006/ 258477
Cornwall Stodart (Plaintiffs)
Farrar Lawyers (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2006/ 258477 2012/ 311698

Judgment (Ex Tempore)

HIS HONOUR: In proceedings 2006/258477, which I shall call the original proceedings, the Plaintiffs John Matyear and Metage Pty Limited, sued eight defendants, including the First Defendant Prismex Technologies Pty Limited, the Second Defendant Mendela Pty Limited, the Third Defendant John Ashall, and the Fifth Defendant Colin Lindsay Taggert, for the winding up of Prismex on grounds of oppression and on the just and equitable ground and, alternatively, for the compulsory acquisition of the Plaintiffs' shares for oppression. Allegations were also made against directors of Prismex of…

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 Colin Lindsay Taggert v John Matyear 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: [2013] NSWSC 292
Decision Date: 06 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Colin Lindsay Taggert sued John Matyear to enforce a consent judgment. The matter concerned a dispute over a contract and the enforcement of a judgment debt. The court was tasked with determining whether the judgment debt could be enforced despite it exceeding the maximum amount recoverable under the applicable legislation. The court also needed to decide whether the consent judgment could be considered a penalty and whether the doctrine of penalties could be applied. Additionally, the court had to consider whether it had the jurisdiction to decline to enforce the judgment on equitable grounds and whether the party seeking to enforce the judgment was in default of its obligations under the consent orders.

The court found that the consent judgment created an immediate enforceable present debt, and there was no scope for the application of the doctrine of penalties. The court also held that the party seeking to enforce the judgment was in default of its obligations under the consent orders, which meant that the court had jurisdiction to decline to enforce the judgment on equitable grounds. The court further found that the minute of consent order did not accurately reflect the intention of the parties or the order as pronounced, and the court had to correct the error. The court exercised its discretion under UCPR r 1.12 to amend the order to accurately reflect the intention of the parties.

The court amended the consent judgment to accurately reflect the intention of the parties. The court found that the judgment debt could not be enforced as it exceeded the maximum amount recoverable under the applicable legislation. The court also found that the party seeking to enforce the judgment was in default of its obligations under the consent orders. Therefore, the court declined to enforce the judgment on equitable grounds. The final orders of the court were that the consent judgment be amended to accurately reflect the intention of the parties, and the judgment debt could not be enforced as it exceeded the maximum amount recoverable under the applicable legislation. The court declined to enforce the judgment on equitable grounds due to the default of the party seeking to enforce the judgment.

Orders