Coopers Brewery Ltd (ACN 007 871 409)
Case
•
[2005] FCA 1426
•11 OCTOBER 2005
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Coopers Brewery Ltd (ACN 007 871 409) [2005] FCA 1426
[2005] FCA 1426
11 OCTOBER 2005
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Coopers Brewery Ltd sought an injunction against the other defendants to prevent them from proceeding with an Extraordinary General Meeting of shareholders. The meeting was convened by notice dated 21 September 2005, and was proposed to be held on 20 October 2005. The plaintiff claimed that the meeting was improperly convened and that the proposed resolution was invalid. The defendants sought to have the application for interlocutory relief dismissed.
The court had to decide whether to grant an injunction to prevent the meeting from proceeding, and if so, under what conditions. The court also had to consider the appropriate compensation to be paid by the plaintiff to any person adversely affected by the operation of the interlocutory order. Additionally, the court had to decide whether to require the defendants to keep a record of the votes cast at the meeting and make it available for inspection by the plaintiff and its solicitors.
The court found that the meeting was properly convened and the proposed resolution was valid. Therefore, the application for interlocutory relief was refused. The court also found that the defendants were not required to keep a record of the votes cast at the meeting and make it available for inspection. However, the court ordered the plaintiff to undertake to pay compensation to any person adversely affected by the operation of the interlocutory order, and to pay the compensation to the person referred to. The costs of the application for interlocutory relief were reserved for further consideration.
The court made an order that the defendants be restrained from proceeding further with the conduct of the general meeting of shareholders, convened by notice dated 21 September 2005, proposed to be held on 20 October 2005, until further order. Liberty was reserved to the defendants on 24 hours’ notice in writing to apply to vary or discharge the order. The court also made an order that the application for interlocutory relief be refused and that the costs of the application for interlocutory relief be reserved for further consideration.
The court had to decide whether to grant an injunction to prevent the meeting from proceeding, and if so, under what conditions. The court also had to consider the appropriate compensation to be paid by the plaintiff to any person adversely affected by the operation of the interlocutory order. Additionally, the court had to decide whether to require the defendants to keep a record of the votes cast at the meeting and make it available for inspection by the plaintiff and its solicitors.
The court found that the meeting was properly convened and the proposed resolution was valid. Therefore, the application for interlocutory relief was refused. The court also found that the defendants were not required to keep a record of the votes cast at the meeting and make it available for inspection. However, the court ordered the plaintiff to undertake to pay compensation to any person adversely affected by the operation of the interlocutory order, and to pay the compensation to the person referred to. The costs of the application for interlocutory relief were reserved for further consideration.
The court made an order that the defendants be restrained from proceeding further with the conduct of the general meeting of shareholders, convened by notice dated 21 September 2005, proposed to be held on 20 October 2005, until further order. Liberty was reserved to the defendants on 24 hours’ notice in writing to apply to vary or discharge the order. The court also made an order that the application for interlocutory relief be refused and that the costs of the application for interlocutory relief be reserved for further consideration.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
-
Corporate Law & Governance
Legal Concepts
-
Interlocutory Orders
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Restraint of Trade
-
Specific Performance
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Shuren & Fang [2023] FedCFamC1F 712
Cases Citing This Decision
30
McLaughlin v Dungowan Manly Pty Ltd
[2010] NSWSC 187
McLaughlin v Dungowan Manly Pty Ltd
[2010] NSWSC 187
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
Peters' American Delicacy Co Ltd v Heath
[1939] HCA 2
Peters' American Delicacy Co Ltd v Heath
[1939] HCA 2
Shree Sanatan Dharm Sabha of NSW Inc v Satya Mani
[2006] NSWSC 96