Essendon Apartment Developments Pty Ltd v Shaw and Ors - [2014] VSC 74

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

CORPORATIONS LIST

S CI 2012 4252

IN THE MATTER of Essendon Apartment Developments Pty Ltd (ACN 145 718 485)
(Formerly Phoenix Business Development Group Pty Ltd)

ESSENDON APARTMENT DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 145 718 485) (Formerly Phoenix Business Development Group Pty Ltd)	Plaintiff
v
JENNIFER SHAW & OTHERS (as per attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	RANDALL AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13-14, 21, 24 September 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 March 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Essendon Apartment Developments Pty Ltd v Shaw & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 74

---

CORPORATIONS — Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1274(B)(2) — Resignation and appointment of director — Transfer of shares — Failure to comply with company’s constitution — Time appointment takes effect.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff and Sixth Defendant	Mr J D Catlin	Tania Cirkovic & Associates
For the First Defendant	Mr G Parncutt	Kiatos & Co
For the Seventh Defendant	Dr E Boros	Stonnington & Zervas

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, formerly known as Phoenix Development Group Pty Ltd (‘Essendon’) is the registered proprietor of land situate and known as 1048–1060 Mt Alexander Road, Essendon (‘the Mt Alexander Road property’) upon which it is proposed to develop a multi-storey apartment block. Essendon also operated The Nursery Wine Bar from the Mt Alexander Road property until about March 2012.

The dispute before me is to resolve the question of who has control of Essendon. The applicant is Mrs Shaw who is recorded in the ASIC records as a former director.

Essendon was registered on 11 August 2010. The Company Extract discloses that the current directors are Antonio Iskaff and Jacobus Smit. The appointment date recorded for Mr Smit is 17 May 2012. The appointment date recorded for Mr Iskaff is 10 July 2012. There is one $1 issued share, which is held in the name of Mr Smit. The Company Extract records that the share held by Mr Smit is not beneficially held by him. Jennifer Shaw is recorded as having resigned as a director on 17 May 2012.

Mrs Shaw contends that she and Mr Iskaff are the directors of Essendon and her removal and the appointment of Mr Smit are invalid. It can be distilled that Mr Smit is in the camp of Danielle McGuire. Mr Iskaff is in the camp of Mrs Shaw.

On 25 July 2012, Essendon filed an originating motion against Mrs Shaw, her husband Bradley Allan Shaw, Giuseppe Cullia, Maria Cristina Cullia, and Southern Style Leisure Group Pty Ltd, a company representing the interests of Mrs Shaw. Putting to one side the restraint sought, the relevant relief required Mrs Shaw to swear an affidavit to, in effect, disclose the financial position of Essendon. The substantive proceeding constituted by the originating motion has not progressed save for the making of freezing orders. A proposed statement of claim has been handed to me but not filed or…

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 Essendon Apartment Developments Pty Ltd v Shaw and Ors 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: [2014] VSC 74
Decision Date: 6 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Essendon Apartment Developments Pty Ltd v Shaw and Ors involved a dispute regarding the resignation and appointment of a director, as well as the transfer of shares, all of which were governed by the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The central issue was whether the appointment of a new director complied with the company's constitution and, consequently, when the appointment took effect. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which had to determine the legal implications of the company's constitution on the process of director appointment and resignation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the resignation of a director and the subsequent appointment of a new director complied with the provisions of the company's constitution and the applicable sections of the Corporations Act. Specifically, the court needed to address whether the failure to follow the constitution’s requirements for resignation and appointment affected the validity of the new director's appointment. Additionally, the court examined the impact of these non-compliances on the effective date of the new director's appointment and whether it was necessary to transfer shares to validate the appointment.

The court ruled that the resignation and appointment process did not comply with the company's constitution, and therefore, the new director's appointment was ineffective. The court held that because the constitution's specific requirements were not met, the appointment did not take effect on the date it was made. Instead, the court determined that the appointment would only take effect once the necessary constitutional procedures were adhered to. This decision hinged on the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Corporations Act and the company's constitution, which required strict compliance with the prescribed procedures. The Federal Court's judgment clarified the importance of following constitutional guidelines for director appointments and the consequences of failing to do so.

The final orders of the court mandated that the company follow its constitution to validate the new director's appointment, which included ensuring that the resignation was properly processed and that the appointment was made in accordance with the company's rules. The court's decision underscored the necessity of adhering to constitutional requirements for director appointments, ensuring that any non-compliance could have significant legal ramifications.

Orders