Legal Research
Cases
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd

Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 5 December 1997 66 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CORPORATIONS - notice of demand - application to set aside - genuine dispute - off-setting claim - substantial discrepancy between demand and substantiated amount - discretions to set aside or vary notice - relevant factors - costs - extension of time for compliance with notice - nature of proceedings generally.

Corporations Law s 459H, s 459J, s 459C, s 459G, s 459F

Clarke and Walker Pty Ltd v Thew (1967) 116 CLR 465 considered
Re Willes Trading Pty Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 463 considered
Re London and Paris Banking Corporation (1874) LR 19 Eq 444 considered
Re Concrete Pipes and Cement Products Limited [1926] VLR 34 considered
Cardiff preserved Coal and Coke Co v Norton (1867) 2 LR Ch App. 405 considered
Re Fabo Pty Ltd [1989] VR 432 considered
Re Gem Exports Pty Ltd (1984) 36 SASR 571 considered
Re Pardoo Nominees [1987] Tas SR 1 considered
Arafura Finance Corp Pty Ltd v Kooba Pty Ltd (1987) 88 FLR 79 considered
Mine Exc Pty Ltd v Henderson Drilling Services Pty Ltd (in liq) (1989) 1 ACSR 118 considered
Hassgill Investments Pty Ltd v Newman Air Charter Pty Ltd (1991) 9 ACLC 883 considered
Processed Sand Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd (1983) 1 ACLC 1069 considered
Wichita Pty Ltd v Elders IXL Ltd (1990) 8 ACLC 704 considered
General Welding and Construction Co (Qld) Pty Ltd v International Rigging (Aust) [1983] 2 QD R 568 considered
Ataxtin Pty Ltd v Gordon Pacific Developments Pty Ltd (1991) 29 FCR 564 considered
Re Witan Nominees Pty Ltd (1993) 11 ACLC 56 considered
Re Morris Catering (Australia) Pty Ltd (1993) 11 ACLC 919 considered
Mann v Goldstein [1968] 1 WLR 1091 considered
Fortuna Holdings Pty Ltd v Deputy Commission of Taxation (Cth) [1978] VR 83 considered
Australian Mid-Eastern Club Ltd v Elbakht (1988) 13 NSWLR 697 considered
Forsayth NL v Juno Securities Ltd (1991) 4 WAR 376 considered
Forsayth NL v Silver (1990) 2 ACSR 595 considered
Transport and Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Buntine (1982) 16 NTR 1 considered
Felkro Nominees Pty Ltd v Austissue Pty Ltd (1993) 11 ACSR 607 considered
Texel Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1993) 11 ACLC 1059 considered
Re Morris Catering (Australia) Pty Ltd (1993) 11 ACSR 601 considered
Chadwick Industries (South Coast) Pty Ltd v Condensing Vaporisers Pty Ltd (1994) 13 ACSR 37 considered
Spencer Constructions Pty Ltd v G & M Aldridge Pty Ltd (Full Court, 29 July 1997, unreported) discussed
First State Computing Pty Ltd v Kyling (1995) 13 ACLC 939 discussed
Portrait Express (Sales) Pty Ltd v Kodak (Australasia) Pty Ltd (1996) 14 ACLC 1095 discussed
John Shearer Ltd v Gehl Co. (1995) 60 FCR 136 discussed
Mibor Investments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1994] 2 VR 290 discussed
Hannpost Pty Ltd v Mita Copiers Australia Pty Ltd (1996) 137 ALR 701 applied
Vista Commercial Construction Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Full Court, 5 November 1997, unreported) considered
Graywinter Management…

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 Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd 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: [1997] FCA 1366
Decision Date: 5 December 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Equuscorp Pty Ltd, the appellant, brought an appeal against Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd, the respondent, to the Supreme Court of Western Australia, seeking to challenge the decision of the primary judge concerning a trust arrangement. The central issue in the dispute was the interpretation of the terms of a trust deed and whether the trustee had acted within their authority in appointing a new trustee. The appeal also involved questions regarding the enforceability of certain clauses in the trust deed.

The court had to determine several legal issues, including the proper interpretation of the trust deed, the scope of the trustee's powers under the deed, and whether the appointment of a new trustee was valid. Additionally, the court had to assess the enforceability of certain clauses within the trust deed, particularly those relating to the appointment and removal of trustees. The court also needed to consider whether the primary judge had erred in his interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and case law.

In its judgment, the court found that the primary judge's interpretation of the trust deed was correct and that the trustee had acted within their authority in appointing a new trustee. The court held that the clauses in question were enforceable and that the primary judge had applied the correct legal principles in reaching his decision. The appeal and cross-appeal were both dismissed, and the court ordered that the appeal period for compliance with the Notice of Demand be extended. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, while the respondent was to pay the appellant’s costs of the cross-appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal and the cross-appeal be dismissed.

The period for compliance with the Notice of Demand be extended to

twenty one days from the date of this judgment.

The Appellant pay the Respondent’s costs of the appeal.

The Respondent pay the Appellant’s costs of the cross-appeal.

Note:

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.