Esperance Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Granite Hill Pty Ltd

The dispute in this case involved Esperance Cattle Company Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and Granite Hill Pty Ltd, the defendant. The plaintiff sought to establish whether it was entitled to relief in the form of mesne profits and damages for trespass, based on the defendant's alleged unauthorised occupation of a property known as Granite Hill Station. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around the plaintiff's capacity to claim relief for trespass, the nature of the award of mesne profits, and the implications of the appointment of a new trustee on shares held by the previous trustee. Additionally, the case examined the effect of a notation on the company register of members, the application of the indoor management rule, and whether misleading or deceptive conduct occurred in relation to the capacity to execute and honour a lease.

The court ruled that for a claim of trespass to be valid, the plaintiff must demonstrate occupation or control over the land prior to the alleged trespass. The court also determined that mesne profits could only be awarded if they were a form of damages for the occupation of the land. Regarding the appointment of a new trustee, the court held that the new trustee was considered a member of the companies pursuant to shares which were trust property, regardless of whether the transfers were executed or effective. Furthermore, the notation of beneficial shareholding on the company register of members did not affect the statutory assumptions that a person having dealings with a company is entitled to make. The court found that the indoor management rule could apply, and the company could rely on the assumptions if a sublease was signed by a person not named as a director in the records held by ASIC. Finally, the court concluded that there was no misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the capacity to execute and honour a lease.

The court's final orders included a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to relief for trespass, the awarding of mesne profits, and the imposition of damages for misleading and deceptive conduct. The court also ordered that the defendant vacate the property and pay the plaintiff's costs.