FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Healey v Doncaster Enterprises Pty Ltd, in the matter of Doncaster Enterprises Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 881
Citation: Healey v Doncaster Enterprises Pty Ltd, in the matter of Doncaster Enterprises Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 881 Parties: CARINA LEE-ANNE HEALEY v DONCASTER ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 101 158 301) File number: WAD 415 of 2010 Judge: SIOPIS J Date of judgment: 17 August 2012 Date of hearing: 14 August 2012 Date of order: 14 August 2012 Place: Perth Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 6 Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr CP Stokes Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Chris Stokes & Associates Counsel for the Defendant: Ms S Edwards Solicitor for the Defendant: Sonia Edwards Legal
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
WAD 415 of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF DONCASTER ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 101 158 301)
BETWEEN: CARINA LEE-ANNE HEALEY
PlaintiffAND: DONCASTER ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 101 158 301)
Defendant
JUDGE:
SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER:
14 AUGUST 2012
WHERE MADE:
PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The originating application is dismissed.
2.The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs, to be taxed if not agreed.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
WAD 415 of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF DONCASTER ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 101 158 301)
BETWEEN: CARINA LEE-ANNE HEALEY
PlaintiffAND: DONCASTER ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 101 158 301)
Defendant
JUDGE:
SIOPIS J
DATE:
17 AUGUST 2012
PLACE:
PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 14 August 2012, I made orders dismissing the originating application made by the plaintiff, Ms Carina Lee-Anne Healey (Ms Healey), seeking relief under s 247A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). I said that I would give my reasons later. These are the reasons.
On 23 December 2010, Ms Healey filed an originating application claiming relief against the defendant company under s 247A of the Corporations Act to permit Ms Healey and/or a forensic accountant nominated by her, to inspect and take copies of the financial records of the defendant company.
The originating application was accompanied by an affidavit which was sworn by Ms Healey on 23 December 2010. That affidavit deposed that Ms Healey was a shareholder of the defendant company. Further, Ms Healey stated in her affidavit that she sought orders that she and/or her forensic accountant be permitted to inspect the financial records of the company in respect of each financial year commencing from 1 July 2001. The financial records which Ms Healey wanted to inspect included the MYOB data files, business activity statements, bank statements, balance sheets, profit and loss statements, the general ledger and taxation returns.
This proceeding was case managed with proceeding WAD 414 of 2010 which was an application by Ms Healey for relief under s 247A of the Corporations Act 2001 against Rubynet Pty Ltd. Throughout the entire interlocutory process, the same directions, mutatis mutandis, were made at the same directions hearings in relation to each of these two proceedings.
On 14 August 2012, I also made orders dismissing the originating application made by Ms Healey in WAD 414 of 2010. I have published reasons for the dismissal of that originating application (Healey v Rubynet Pty Ltd, in the matter of Rubynet Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 880 (Rubynet)).
Save for the final three paragraphs, the reasons which I have published in Rubynet, comprise, mutatis mutandis, the reasons for the dismissal of this application by Ms Healey. The final three paragraphs of the reasons for judgment in Rubynet, have no application in this case. Ms Healey ceased to be a director of the defendant company in 2006.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Siopis. Associate:
Dated: 17 August 2012
- AGLC
- Healey v Doncaster Enterprises Pty Ltd, in the matter of Doncaster Enterprises Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 881
- Case
- [2012] FCA 881
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Ms Healey was entitled to the requested inspection and copying of the company's financial records under section 247A of the Corporations Act 2001. This section allows a court to grant such relief if it is satisfied that the making of the order is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The court had to consider whether Ms Healey met the criteria set forth in the legislation and whether her request was reasonable and justified. The court also needed to examine the nature and extent of Ms Healey's interest in the company, as well as the purpose behind her request for the inspection of the financial records.
In dismissing the application, Justice Siopis relied on the reasons provided in the concurrent case Healey v Rubynet Pty Ltd, in the matter of Rubynet Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 880. The judge found that Ms Healey did not satisfy the criteria necessary for the court to grant the requested relief. The court was not persuaded that Ms Healey's reasons for seeking the inspection and copying of the financial records were reasonable or justified under the circumstances. Furthermore, the judge determined that the application was not made in good faith, which is a critical consideration under section 247A of the Corporations Act 2001. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered that Ms Healey pay the defendant's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.