Hooke v Bux Global Limited

Case [2018] FCA 740


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hooke v Bux Global Limited [2018] FCA 740

File number: WAD 644 of 2017
Judge: COLVIN J
Date of judgment: 17 May 2018
Date of publication of reasons:   23 May 2018
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS - winding up application - application for summary judgment on basis that plaintiffs do not have standing - where plaintiffs are registered holders of shares - where plaintiffs investment resulted in shareholding without agreement or knowledge - whether plaintiffs are contributories - standing as contributory - whether 'a holder of fully paid shares' to be given natural meaning -  whether plaintiffs should be permitted to seek standing in the same proceedings as application for winding up - application for summary judgment dismissed. 
Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 461, 462

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 41.04

Cases cited: Treadtel International Pty Ltd v Cocco [2016] NSWCA 360; (2016) 316 FLR 318
Date of hearing: 17 May 2018
Registry: Western Australia
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 28
Counsel for the Plaintiffs: Mr DJ Jackson SC & Mr SJ Penrose
Solicitor for the Plaintiffs: Tottle Partners
Counsel for the Defendant: Mr AP Young QC & Mr PH Murray
Solicitor for the Defendant: K&L Gates

ORDERS

WAD 644 of 2017
BETWEEN:

PETER JAMES HOOKE & CLAIRE ELIZABETH HOOKE

First Plaintiff

PETER JAMES HOOKE & BRICE JAMES HOOKE AS TRUSTEES FOR THE HOOKE SUPERANNUATION FUND

Second Plaintiff

AND:

BUX GLOBAL LIMITED (ACN 613 313 616)

Defendant

JUDGE:

COLVIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 MAY 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for summary judgment is dismissed. 

2.The costs of the application be costs in the cause. 

3.On the applications for discovery and the question of inspection of documents produced on subpoena by the Commonwealth Bank and the ANZ Bank:

(a)the plaintiffs do file and serve written submissions by 17 May 2018;

(b)the defendant do file and serve written submissions in response by 24 May 2018; and

(c)the issues be determined on the papers.

4.The plaintiffs do deliver any proposed amended concise statement by 23 May 2018.

5.The matter be otherwise adjourned for a case management hearing on 1 June 2018 at 9.30 am

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLVIN J:

  1. The plaintiffs seek orders for the winding up of Bux Global Limited (Bux).  In their concise statement, they claim they have been 'purportedly issued shares', but they did not apply for shares in Bux and did not participate in any transaction by which their shares in a company Bux.com Global Limited (Bux.com) might be exchanged for shares in Bux.  As a result, they accept they do not meet the definition of member in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

  2. There is evidence before me that the plaintiffs were added to the register of shareholders of Bux and issued with holding certificates.  Despite this,…

Continue reading Hooke v Bux Global Limited

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hooke v Bux Global Limited [2018] FCA 740
Case
[2018] FCA 740
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hooke v Bux Global Limited involved a winding up application brought by the plaintiffs, who were the registered holders of shares in Bux Global Limited. The plaintiffs sought to wind up the company due to alleged misconduct and insolvency. The defendant, Bux Global Limited, contested the application and sought a summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the application. The legal issues centred around whether the plaintiffs, who were the registered holders of shares in the company without agreement or knowledge, were contributories of the company and thus had standing to apply for the winding up. The court was required to determine the meaning of "a holder of fully paid shares" and whether the plaintiffs could seek standing in the same proceedings as the winding up application.

The court dismissed the application for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs were indeed contributories of the company and thus had standing to bring the winding up application. The court held that the term "a holder of fully paid shares" should be given its natural meaning and that the plaintiffs, as registered holders of shares, were contributories. The court also found that the plaintiffs should not be prevented from seeking standing in the same proceedings as the winding up application. The court further ordered that the plaintiffs file written submissions on the discovery and inspection of documents produced on subpoena by the Commonwealth Bank and the ANZ Bank, and that the matter be adjourned for a case management hearing.

The court ordered that the costs of the application be costs in the cause, and that the plaintiffs file any proposed amended concise statement by a specified date. The court also directed that the parties file written submissions on the discovery and inspection of documents produced on subpoena by the Commonwealth Bank and the ANZ Bank, and that the issues be determined on the papers. The matter was adjourned for a case management hearing on a specified date. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for summary judgment is dismissed.

2. The costs of the application be costs in the cause.

3. On the applications for discovery and the question of inspection of documents produced on subpoena by the Commonwealth Bank and the ANZ Bank:

(a) the plaintiffs do file and serve written submissions by 17 May 2018;

(b) the defendant do file and serve written submissions in response by 24 May 2018; and

(c) the issues be determined on the papers.

4. The plaintiffs do deliver any proposed amended concise statement by 23 May 2018.

5. The matter be otherwise adjourned for a case management hearing on 1 June 2018 at 9.30 am

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.