Haselgrove v Lavender Estates Pty Limited - [2009] NSWSC 1076

CITATION: Haselgrove v Lavender Estates Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 1076

HEARING DATE(S): 28 September 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
9 October 2009

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Corporations List

JUDGMENT OF: Ward J at 1

DECISION: Winding up order made. Order to be stayed to allow meeting to occur.

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - winding up - applications for winding up by court - application by majority shareholder/director plaintiff that company be wound up - application opposed by other director - whether company should be wound up under s 233(1)(a) and/or s 463(1)(k) of the Corporations Act - held that, subject to parties being given final opportunity to convene meeting to address company’s future conduct, company should be wound up - orders stayed for a period to allow meeting to take place

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001
Family Provision Act 1982

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Pty Limited [1973] AC 360
Gibson v Haselgrove; Delmont v Haselgrove [2009] NSWSC 496
International Hospitality Concepts Pty Limited v National Marketing Concepts Inc (No 2) (1994) 13 ACSR 368
Kelson Investments Pty Limited v KGE Electric Pty Limited (1993, SC NSW unreported)
McMillan v Toledo Enterprises International Pty Limited (1995) 18 ACSR 603
Re City Meat Co Pty Ltd (1983) 8 ACLR 673
Re Cumberland Holdings Limited (1976) 1 ACLR 361
Re NRMA Limited (No 1) (2000) ACSR 595
Re Tivoli Freeholds Ltd [1972] VR 445
Re Wondoflex Textiles Pty Ltd [1951] VLR 458
Re Yenidje Tobacco Limited [1916] 2 Ch 426
Stapp v Surge Holdings Pty Limited (1999) 31 ACSR 35
Strong v Brough & Son (Strathfield) (1991) 5 ACSR 296

PARTIES: Ronald James Cleveland Haselgrove (Plaintiff)
Lavender Estates Pty Limited (First Defendant)
June Dianne Gibson (Second Defendant)
Pitlochry Guesthouse Pty Limited (Third Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4402 of 2009

COUNSEL: M Lawson with him M Eardley (Plaintiff)
No appearance (First and Third Defendants)
E Hyde (Second Defendant)
C Harris SC (amicus curiae)

SOLICITORS: Donaldson Walsh Lawyers (Plaintiff)
No appearance (First and Third Defendants)
Maxwell & Co (Second Defendant)

- 36 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST

WARD J

FRIDAY 9 OCTOBER 2009

4402/09 RONALD JAMES CLEVELAND HASELGROVE V LAVENDER ESTATE PTY LIMITED

JUDGMENT

1 This is an application under s 233(1)(a) and/or s 463(1)(k) of the Corporations Act 2001, for the winding up of Lavender Estates Pty Limited and for the appointment of Mr Peter Lanthois and Mr Christopher Powell from KordaMentha as liquidators of the company.

2 The application is brought by Mr Haselgrove. He is the holder (as executor and trustee of the estate of the late David William Delmont) of 62.5% of the shares of Lavender Estates. Probate of the late Mr Delmont’s will was granted to Mr Haselgrove on 17 June 2008. Mr Haselgrove was appointed a director of Lavender Estates on 21 August 2008.

3 The second defendant, Ms Gibson, is the other director of the company and was, from the date of Mr Delmont’s death in January 2007 until…

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 Haselgrove v Lavender Estates Pty Limited 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] NSWSC 1076
Decision Date: 9 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haselgrove v Lavender Estates Pty Limited involved a legal dispute between two directors of the company, Haselgrove and Lavender Estates. The plaintiff, Haselgrove, a majority shareholder and director of the company, filed an application to wind up the company. This application was opposed by the other director, who was also a defendant in the case. The central issue before the court was whether the company should be wound up under sections 233(1)(a) and/or 463(1)(k) of the Corporations Act. The court had to consider whether there were grounds to order the winding up of the company, and if so, under which specific provisions of the Corporations Act.

The court examined the facts and the arguments presented by both parties. It considered the conduct of the company and the relationship between the directors. The court determined that there were valid reasons to wind up the company, based on the circumstances and the provisions of the Corporations Act. The court emphasised the need for the parties to have an opportunity to address the company's future conduct and to resolve any disputes between the directors. Consequently, the court decided that the winding up of the company should proceed, but it stayed the orders to allow the parties a final opportunity to convene a meeting to discuss and possibly resolve the issues that led to the application for winding up.

The court's decision was based on a careful assessment of the evidence and the relevant legal provisions. It found that the company should indeed be wound up, but it recognised the importance of giving the directors a chance to address the underlying issues before finalising the winding up process. The court’s reasoning reflected a balance between the need for legal action and the potential for amicable resolution among the parties involved. The final orders of the court stayed the winding up proceedings to allow for the convening of a meeting, with the understanding that if the issues were not resolved, the winding up would proceed as ordered.

Orders