Grand Enterprises Pty Ltd v Aurium Resources Ltd - [2009] FCA 513

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Grand Enterprises Pty Ltd v Aurium Resources Limited [2009] FCA 513

CORRIGENDUM

GRAND ENTERPRISES PTY LTD and MEROLIZA PTY LTD v AURIUM RESOURCES LIMITED

WAD 42 of 2009

BARKER J
19 MAY 2009 (CORRIGENDUM 16 JUNE 2009)
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD 42 of 2009

BETWEEN:

GRAND ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
First Plaintiff

MEROLIZA PTY LTD
Second Plaintiff

AND:

AURIUM RESOURCES LTD
Defendant

JUDGE:	BARKER J
DATE:	19 MAY 2009 (CORRIGENDUM 16 JUNE 2009)
PLACE:	PERTH

CORRIGENDUM

Paragraph 49 "s 191(5)" should read "s 191(4)".
Paragraph 72 1^st line, "0.03%" should read "0.83%".
Paragraph 77, 5^th line, "Fotis" should read as "Fortis".
Paragraph 80, 4^th line, "increase" should read "increased".
Paragraph 99, 11.19 first line "Clause 11.10" should read "11.20" and third line after the words "any such contract or" insert the words "any contract or".
Paragraph 99 11.20, before word "personal", insert the word "material".
Paragraph 102 second line, after the word "disclosed", insert the sentence "unless such interest falls within the exception of section 191(2) of the Corporations Act".

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Barker.

Associate:

Dated: 16 June 2009

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Grand Enterprises Pty Ltd v Aurium Resources Limited [2009] FCA 513

CORPORATIONS – directors – validity of resolutions of board – fiduciary duty – profit rule and conflict of interest rule – director's duty to disclose – material personal interest in a matter that relates to the affairs of the company– interests of directors insubstantial and/or remote in context of case – no need to make disclosure – information not withheld

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 191(1), s 191(2), s 191(2)(a)(i), s 191(2)(a)(iii), s 191(4), s 191(5), s 192, s 192(2), s 193, s 195(1), s 195(1A), s 195(1A)(b), s 195(1B), s 195(2), s 195(3), s 195(5), s 1324
Corporations Law (Cth), s 232A(1), s 1322
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 23

Bulfin v Bebarfalds Limited (1938) 30 SR (NSW) 423
Buttonwood Nominees Pty Ltd v Sundowner Minerals NL (1986) 10 ACLR 360
Fraser v NRMA Holdings Ltd (1995) 13 ACLC 132

Hospital Products Limited v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41
Jenkins v Enterprise Gold Mines NL (1992) 6 ACSR 539
Killen v Marra Developments Ltd [1979] ACLD 608
Kriewaldt v Independent Direction Ltd (1995) 14 ACLC 73
McGellin v Mount King Mining NL (1998) 144 FLR 288
Mott v Mount Edon Gold Mines (Australia) Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 658

R v Byrnes (1995) 17 ACSR 551

Transvaal Lands Co v New Belgium (Transvaal) Lands & Development Co [1914] 2 Ch 488

GRAND ENTERPRISES PTY LTD and MEROLIZA PTY LTD v AURIUM RESOURCES LIMITED

WAD 42 of 2009

BARKER J
19 MAY 2009
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD 42 of 2009

BETWEEN:

GRAND ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
First Plaintiff

MEROLIZA PTY…

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 Grand Enterprises Pty Ltd v Aurium Resources 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: [2009] FCA 513
Decision Date: 19 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Grand Enterprises Pty Ltd v Aurium Resources Ltd, the plaintiffs sought to challenge certain decisions made by the defendant company. The dispute revolved around the governance and decision-making processes within Aurium Resources Ltd. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiffs argued that certain decisions were made in breach of the Corporations Act 2001 and the company's constitution, leading to significant financial loss.

The legal issues before the court included whether the decisions of the defendant company were validly made, whether they complied with the statutory and constitutional requirements, and if the plaintiffs had standing to bring the action. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiffs had a legitimate interest in the proceedings and if the decisions in question were indeed unlawful. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate remedy if the plaintiffs' claims were found to be valid.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the action as they did not demonstrate a direct interest in the decisions made by the defendant company. The court ruled that the plaintiffs had not shown how the decisions adversely affected their legal or equitable rights. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed. The court further ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs, including each appearance in the Court, as taxed, if not agreed. This decision underscored the importance of demonstrating a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation to establish standing in such cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

The plaintiffs' application is dismissed.

The plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs, including each appearance in the Court, as taxed, if not agreed.

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.