Hardcastle v Advanced Mining Technologies Pty Ltd

Case [2001] FCA 1846

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hardcastle v Advanced Mining Technologies Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1846

CORPORATIONS – powers of directors – rights of access to company books – former director seeking access to company’s books for purpose of bring legal proceeding – purpose of inspection – whether legal proceeding must relate to director in capacity as director – whether director must specify specific categories of material

Corporations Act 2001 s 198F

PHILIP JULIAN HARDCASTLE v ADVANCED MINING TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD & ORS

N 923 of 2001

EMMETT J
10 SEPTEMBER 2001
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 923 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

PHILIP JULIAN HARDCASTLE
APPLICANT

AND:

ADVANCED MINING TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD
ACN 060 418 859
FIRST RESPONDENT

HENDRIKUS THEODORUS VERHOEF
SECOND RESPONDENT

THOMAS BAINES GILPIN
THIRD RESPONDENT

SCOTT THOMSON
FOURTH RESPONDENT

FRANCIS HUNGERFORD
FIFTH RESPONDENT

BEVERLEY M. HARDCASTLE
SIXTH RESPONDENT

TARGET DRILLING INC
SEVETH RESPONDENT

STEPHEN J. KRAVITIS
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 SEPTEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   Paragraphs 27 to 59 of the statement of claim be struck out.

2.   The applicant have leave to file an amended statement of claim and if necessary, an amended application, relating to any relief that he seeks in relation to the following instruments:

·a deed of settlement dated of 2 July 1999 between the first respondent, the applicant and the second and third respondents (Annexure N to the affidavit of Hendrikus Theodorus Verhoef filed 23 August 2001);

·a deed dated 3 August between the applicant, Geoffrey Stewart Turner as trustee of the Hardcastle Family Trust and Geoffrey Stewart Turner as liquidator of Hardcastle Investments Australia Pty Limited (Annexure P to the affidavit of Hendrikus Theodorus Verhoef filed 23 August 2001); and

·terms of settlement dated 6 July 1999 in Family Court Proceedings PA 491 of 1996 (Annexure Q to the affidavit of Hendrikus Theodorus Verhoef filed 23 August 2001).

3.   Any such amended statement of claim and amended application be filed and served no later than 2 November 2001. 

4.   The motion filed 23 August 2001 be stood over insofar it relates to paragraph 126 of the statement of claim. 

5.   The motion filed 23 August 2001 be stood over for mention on 9 November 2001.

6.   One half of the costs of the notice of motion filed 23 August 2001 be the costs of the first, second and third respondents in the proceeding. 

7.   The motion filed 20 July 2001 be dismissed with costs.

8.   The proceedings be stood over for directions generally on 9 November 2001. 

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 923 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

PHILIP JULIAN HARDCASTLE
APPLICANT

AND:

ADVANCED MINING TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD
ACN 060 418 859
FIRST RESPONDENT

HENDRIKUS THEODORUS VERHOEF
SECOND RESPONDENT

THOMAS BAINES GILPIN
THIRD RESPONDENT

SCOTT THOMSON
FOURTH RESPONDENT

FRANCIS HUNGERFORD
FIFTH RESPONDENT

BEVERLEY M.…

Continue reading Hardcastle v Advanced Mining Technologies Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hardcastle v Advanced Mining Technologies Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1846
Case
[2001] FCA 1846
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hardcastle v Advanced Mining Technologies Pty Ltd involved the applicant, Hardcastle, who sought to recover certain claims against the respondents. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was tasked with determining whether certain paragraphs of Hardcastle's statement of claim should be struck out and whether Hardcastle should be granted leave to amend his claim to include certain specified instruments.

The legal issues before the court were whether the specified paragraphs of Hardcastle's statement of claim disclosed any reasonable cause of action and whether Hardcastle should be allowed to amend his claim to include the specified instruments. The court considered the relevant pleadings and submissions made by both parties, including whether Hardcastle had acted with sufficient particularity in his statement of claim and whether the proposed amendments were likely to succeed.

The court found that the specified paragraphs of Hardcastle's statement of claim did not disclose any reasonable cause of action and were accordingly struck out. However, the court granted Hardcastle leave to amend his claim to include the specified instruments. The court also ordered that any such amended statement of claim and amended application be filed and served by a specified date. The court further ordered that certain costs be paid by the respondents and that certain motions be stood over for further mention.

In summary, the court dismissed certain claims made by Hardcastle but allowed him to amend his claim to include certain specified instruments. The court also made orders relating to costs and the management of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Paragraphs 27 to 59 of the statement of claim be struck out.

2. The applicant have leave to file an amended statement of claim and if necessary, an amended application, relating to any relief that he seeks in relation to the following instruments:

· a deed of settlement dated of 2 July 1999 between the first respondent, the applicant and the second and third respondents (Annexure N to the affidavit of Hendrikus Theodorus Verhoef filed 23 August 2001);

· a deed dated 3 August between the applicant, Geoffrey Stewart Turner as trustee of the Hardcastle Family Trust and Geoffrey Stewart Turner as liquidator of Hardcastle Investments Australia Pty Limited (Annexure P to the affidavit of Hendrikus Theodorus Verhoef filed 23 August 2001); and

· terms of settlement dated 6 July 1999 in Family Court Proceedings PA 491 of 1996 (Annexure Q to the affidavit of Hendrikus Theodorus Verhoef filed 23 August 2001).

3. Any such amended statement of claim and amended application be filed and served no later than 2 November 2001.

4. The motion filed 23 August 2001 be stood over insofar it relates to paragraph 126 of the statement of claim.

5. The motion filed 23 August 2001 be stood over for mention on 9 November 2001.

6. One half of the costs of the notice of motion filed 23 August 2001 be the costs of the first, second and third respondents in the proceeding.

7. The motion filed 20 July 2001 be dismissed with costs.

8. The proceedings be stood over for directions generally on 9 November 2001.

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

STEPHEN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: STEPHEN J

Full text does not contain this section.