FAST SCOUT LTD -v- BERGEL & ORS [2001] WASC 343
| (2001) 25 WAR 244 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASC 343 | |
| 18/12/2001 | |||
| Case No: | COR:401/2001 | 20 & 21 NOVEMBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | TEMPLEMAN J | 26/11/01 | |
| 22 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Plaintiff successful Declaration that resolution removing incumbent board of Bigshop and appointing Fast Scout nominees had been carried | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | FAST SCOUT LTD (ABN 94 088 488 724) GARY IRWIN BERGEL CHARLES MORTON MICHAEL RICHARD BRERETON BIGSHOP.COM.AU LTD (ABN 55 082 541 473) |
Catchwords: | Corporations Interlocutory application for determination of validity of proxies Relief sought under s 1322 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Whether pre-completed forms are valid proxy forms Whether Chairman's decision ruling the proxy forms invalid is reviewable |
Legislation: | Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1322, s 232, s 249F, s 249X, s 250A |
Case References: | ANZ Nominees Ltd v Allied Resources Corporation Ltd (1984) 2 ACLC 783 Byng v London Life Association Ltd [1990] 1 Ch 170 Capital Energy NL v Stirling Resources NL (1996) 20 ACSR 704 Link Agricultural Pty Ltd v Shanahan, McCallum & Pivot Ltd [1999] 1 VR 466 Maori Development Corporation Ltd v Power Beat International Ltd [1995] 2 NZLR 568 Re Oxted Motor Company Ltd [1921] 3 KB 32 Wall v Exchange Investment Corporation Ltd [1926] Ch 143 Wall v London and Northern Assets Corporation [1899] 1 Ch 550 Armstrong v Landmark Corporation Ltd [1967] 1 NSWR 13 Australian Hydrocarbons NL v Green (1985) 10 ACLR 72 Howard v Mechtler (1999) 30 ACSR 434 Industrial Equity v New Redhead Estate [1969] 1 NSWR 565 North Sydney Brick and Tile Co Ltd v Darvall (1989) 17 NSWLR 327 Re Australian Koyo Ltd (1984) 8 ACLR 928 Scullion v Family Planning Association of Queensland (1985) 10 ACLR 249 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : FAST SCOUT LTD -v- BERGEL & ORS [2001] WASC 343 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J HEARD : 20 & 21 NOVEMBER 2001 DELIVERED : 26 NOVEMBER 2001 PUBLISHED : 18 DECEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : COR 401 of 2001 BETWEEN : FAST SCOUT LTD (ABN 94 088 488 724)
- Plaintiff
AND
GARY IRWIN BERGEL
CHARLES MORTON
MICHAEL RICHARD BRERETON
First Defendants
BIGSHOP.COM.AU LTD (ABN 55 082 541 473)
Second Defendant
Catchwords:
Corporations - Interlocutory application for determination of validity of proxies - Relief sought under s 1322 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - Whether pre-completed forms are valid proxy forms - Whether Chairman's decision ruling the proxy forms invalid is reviewable
Legislation:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1322, s 232, s 249F, s 249X, s 250A
(Page 2)
Result:
Plaintiff successful
Declaration that resolution removing incumbent board of Bigshop and appointing Fast Scout nominees had been carried
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr P D Evans
First Defendants : Ms N Johnson QC & Mr A J Power
Second Defendant : Ms N Johnson QC & Mr A J…
Continue reading Fast Scout Ltd v Bergel
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Fast Scout Ltd v Bergel [2001] WASC 343
- Case
- [2001] WASC 343
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Fast Scout Limited brought an application against Bergel and others, challenging the validity of a resolution that resulted in the removal of the incumbent board of Bigshop Limited and the appointment of Fast Scout's nominees. The application was brought under section 1322 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and it sought a declaration that the resolution was valid and enforceable. The primary issue before the court was whether the pre-completed proxy forms used in the resolution process were valid, and if the Chairman's decision to rule the proxy forms invalid was subject to review.
The court examined the statutory provisions and case law to determine the validity of the proxy forms. It found that the pre-completed forms complied with the statutory requirements and did not contravene any provisions of the Corporations Act. The court also considered whether the Chairman's decision to rule the proxy forms invalid was reviewable. It concluded that the decision was not subject to review because the Chairman had exercised a discretion rather than making a decision under a statutory power.
As a result of the court's decision, Fast Scout Limited was successful in its application. The court declared that the resolution removing the incumbent board of Bigshop and appointing Fast Scout's nominees had been carried and was valid. The orders of the court included a declaration to this effect, providing clarity and finality to the parties regarding the outcome of the resolution process.
The court examined the statutory provisions and case law to determine the validity of the proxy forms. It found that the pre-completed forms complied with the statutory requirements and did not contravene any provisions of the Corporations Act. The court also considered whether the Chairman's decision to rule the proxy forms invalid was reviewable. It concluded that the decision was not subject to review because the Chairman had exercised a discretion rather than making a decision under a statutory power.
As a result of the court's decision, Fast Scout Limited was successful in its application. The court declared that the resolution removing the incumbent board of Bigshop and appointing Fast Scout's nominees had been carried and was valid. The orders of the court included a declaration to this effect, providing clarity and finality to the parties regarding the outcome of the resolution process.
Orders
Orders of the court
Plaintiff successful
Declaration that resolution removing incumbent board of Bigshop and appointing Fast Scout nominees had been carried
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.