In the matter of Ballistic Australia Pty Limited (ACN 112 963 238)

The case involved Ballistic Australia Pty Limited, a company with ACN 112 963 238, and its shareholder, who applied for the company to be wound up on the ground that it was just and equitable to do so. The dispute arose due to a deadlock between the shareholders, leading to an inability to conduct the company's business effectively. The court was required to decide whether the other shareholder should be joined as a defendant in the winding-up application.

The central legal issue was whether the court should compel the other shareholder to be joined as a defendant in the winding-up application. The court considered whether the application could proceed without the other shareholder and if joining the other shareholder was necessary to address the deadlock effectively. The court had to balance the rights of the applicant shareholder against the potential impact on the company and the other shareholder.

The court held that the application could proceed without the other shareholder being joined as a defendant. The court reasoned that the applicant had established a just and equitable ground for winding up the company due to the deadlock. The court noted that the applicant had demonstrated that the company could not be wound up justly and equitably without addressing the deadlock, but joining the other shareholder was not necessary to resolve the issue at hand. Consequently, the court granted the winding-up order, allowing the applicant to proceed with the winding up of the company.

The court ordered that Ballistic Australia Pty Limited be wound up, without the need to join the other shareholder as a defendant in the application. The court appointed a liquidator to oversee the winding up of the company. This decision allowed the applicant to pursue the winding up of the company on the just and equitable ground, addressing the deadlock between the shareholders.