De Hollander v Hocking Land Company Pty Ltd, in the matter of Hocking Land Company Pty Ltd

[2012] FCA 882

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

De Hollander v Hocking Land Company Pty Ltd, in the matter of Hocking Land Company Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 882

Citation:		De Hollander v Hocking Land Company Pty Ltd, in the matter of Hocking Land Company Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 882
Parties:		JOANNE DE HOLLANDER v HOCKING LAND COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 084 881 309)
File number:		WAD 416 of 2010
Judge:		SIOPIS J
Date of judgment:		17 August 2012
Date of hearing:	14 August 2012
Date of order:	14 August 2012
Place:	Perth
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	4
Counsel for the Plaintiff:	Mr CP Stokes
Solicitor for the Plaintiff:	Chris Stokes & Associates
Counsel for the Defendant:	Ms S Edwards
Solicitor for the Defendant:	Sonia Edwards Legal

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 416 of 2010

IN THE MATTER OF HOCKING LAND COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 084 881 309)

BETWEEN:	JOANNE DE HOLLANDER Plaintiff
AND:	HOCKING LAND COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 084 881 309) Defendant

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 AUGUST 2012
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The plaintiff has leave to discontinue the proceeding.

2.The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceeding, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 416 of 2010

IN THE MATTER OF HOCKING LAND COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 084 881 309)

BETWEEN:	JOANNE DE HOLLANDER Plaintiff
AND:	HOCKING LAND COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 084 881 309) Defendant

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE:	17 AUGUST 2012
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff, Ms De Hollander, commenced an application against the defendant, Hocking Land Company Pty Ltd, on 23 December 2010, for orders for the inspection of the financial records of the defendant company under s 247A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Ms De Hollander filed an affidavit in support of her application. Ms De Hollander deposed in her affidavit that she was a shareholder of the defendant company and in that capacity sought orders for the inspection of the defendant company’s financial records, including MYOB data files, business activity statements, company tax returns, general ledgers, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and bank accounts for each financial year from 1 July 2001.

2. The matter was case managed along with applications WAD 414 of 2010 and WAD 415 of 2010 and was listed for trial on 14 August 2012.

3. On the first day of the trial, I made orders on the application of the controlling trustees of Ms De Hollander’s estate, that Ms De Hollander have leave to discontinue this proceeding and that Ms De Hollander pay the defendant company’s costs of the proceeding, to be taxed if not agreed.

4. The reason why I made the orders was that Mr Benjamin Peter Piggott deposed that he and Mr Glenn Douglas Trinick had, on 13 July 2012, been appointed as joint and several controlling trustees of the estate of Ms De Hollander.  Mr Piggott deposed that the defendant company was subject to a deed of company arrangement, and that there was a lack of resources in the administration of Ms De Hollander’s estate to permit a further investigation of the merits of Ms De Hollander’s application.  Therefore, Mr Piggott and Mr Trinick sought leave to discontinue the proceeding.  In my view, this was an appropriate course for Mr Piggott and Mr Trinick to take and I made orders accordingly.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Siopis.

Associate:

Dated:       17 August 2012