Glazier v Australian Men's Health (No 2)

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Glazier v Australian Men's Health (No 2) dealt with the question of whether the plaintiff was entitled to an accounting of the defendant's finances under the principles of equity. The plaintiff sought an accounting to determine whether the defendant had misappropriated funds. The case was a follow-up to a previous proceeding between the same parties, which had resulted in consent orders. The court had to decide whether these consent orders precluded the plaintiff from seeking an accounting on the basis of res judicata and issue estoppel.

The legal issues before the court included the distinction between accounting for administration and accounting for profit, particularly whether an accounting for administration could be ordered on the basis of a wilful default. Additionally, the court needed to determine the scope of the estoppels that arose from the consent orders, and whether these estoppels precluded the plaintiff from pursuing an accounting on the basis of wilful default. The court had to balance the principles of finality of judgments against the equitable remedy of accounting, which is discretionary.

The court held that an accounting for administration could indeed be ordered on the basis of wilful default, distinguishing this from an accounting for profit. The court noted that the principles of equity allow for flexibility in the form and basis of an accounting, and that the form of the accounting should reflect the nature of the claim. Regarding the estoppels arising from the consent orders, the court found that these did not preclude the plaintiff from seeking an accounting on the basis of wilful default. The court held that the estoppels did not extend to issues that were not finally determined in the previous proceeding. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to an accounting on the basis of wilful default.

The court ordered that the defendant provide an accounting to the plaintiff, to be conducted in the common form and on the basis of wilful default. The defendant was required to furnish detailed financial records to facilitate this accounting. The court also noted that the accounting should be completed within a specified timeframe, and that failure to comply with the order could result in further legal consequences.