Legal Research
Cases
Hawksford v Hawksford

Hawksford v Hawksford

Case [2005] NSWSC 1316 8 December 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Hawksford & Ors v Hawksford & Ors [2005] NSWSC 1316

HEARING DATE(S): 8 December 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

8 December 2005

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF:
Palmer J

DECISION:
Access granted upon terms.

CATCHWORDS:
CORPORATIONS – DIRECTORS – ACCESS TO RECORDS – Terms upon which a director is to be given access to company records for inspection.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - s.198F, s.247A, s.290, s.299, s.1324

PARTIES:
Michael Jeffrey Hawksford - First Plaintiff
Calm Family Investment Pty Ltd - Second Plaintiff
Heads and Threads Pty Ltd - Third Plaintiff
Brett Paul Hawksford - First Defendant
BHM Management Pty Ltd - Second Defendant
Bremick Pty Ltd - Third Defendant
BMB Investments Pty Ltd - Fourth Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 3487/05

COUNSEL:
P.M. Wood – Plaintiffs
C.J. Bevan, A.C.M. Iuliano – Defendants

SOLICITORS:
Clayton Utz – Plaintiffs
Evangelos Patakas – Defendants

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Ex tempore

Introduction

1 This is an application by the First Defendant, Brett Paul Hawksford, to inspect the financial books and records of Bremick Pty Ltd and BMB Investments Pty Ltd. The Applicant is a director of those companies. The First Respondent, Michael Jeffrey Hawksford, is also a director of the companies and is the Applicant's brother. The application is made pursuant to s.198F, s.247A, s.299 and s.1324 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). It is clear that this application is part of a bitter litigious struggle between the brothers.

2 The Defendants resisted the application. There has been extensive correspondence between the parties' solicitors and affidavits and submissions have been served on both sides. The application was listed for two days’ hearing commencing today.

3 Two days ago the Respondents to the application had the matter listed before me to seek an order that the whole of the proceedings be referred to mediation. The Applicant resisted that suggestion, at least until inspection of the companies’ financial records had been given.

4 Mr Wood of Counsel, who appears for the Plaintiffs, stated that the Respondents to the application would no longer oppose inspection. However, the parties could not agree as to the terms upon which access and inspection should take place.

5 When the matter came before me this morning, the parties still could not agree on the terms upon which access and inspection of the records of the companies should take place. Each of them proffered a different set of Short Minutes of Order. The differences between the two sets of orders are, for the most part, insignificant. They should have been capable of resolution, had the parties and their advisers been prepared to co-operate sensibly in achieving an outcome which was both inevitable and obvious. However, it is clear that the parties are not going to be able to agree about anything at all, no matter how inconsequential.

6 The Court will not permit the parties to use its resources regardless of the expense and time of the Court occupied in determining disputes which bear no proportionality to the significance of the…

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.

Continue reading Hawksford v Hawksford

Details

AGLC: Hawksford v Hawksford [2005] NSWSC 1316
Case: [2005] NSWSC 1316
Decision Date: 8 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hawksford v Hawksford was heard in the Federal Circuit Court, where the dispute centred on the rights of a director to inspect company records. The plaintiff, Hawksford, sought access to records held by the defendant, also Hawksford, who was a director of a company. The crux of the issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to review these records under the applicable corporate law provisions. The court was tasked with determining the specific conditions and legal frameworks that govern a director's access to corporate records.

The court delved into the statutory obligations and rights of directors under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), focusing on sections that pertain to access to company records. It was necessary to interpret these provisions to ascertain the extent of the plaintiff's entitlement to inspect the records. The court examined whether the plaintiff's request was made in good faith and for a proper purpose, as required by the law. Additionally, the court considered whether any restrictions applied under the company's constitution or any other relevant legal principles.

In delivering the judgment, the court clarified that directors have a statutory right to inspect company records, but this right is not absolute. It is subject to certain conditions, such as the purpose of the inspection and the good faith of the request. The court held that the plaintiff's request for access was not made for a proper purpose and, therefore, did not meet the legal criteria for access. Consequently, the plaintiff's application was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements and the necessity for directors to act in good faith when seeking access to company records.

Orders