In the matter of Courtesy Real Estate (NSW) Pty Limited

Courtesy Real Estate (NSW) Pty Limited was the subject of a legal dispute in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue in this case was whether the removal of a director was in breach of the shareholders agreement, and whether the balance of convenience favoured an interlocutory order for the reappointment of the director. The applicant, who had not been a director for several months before seeking interlocutory relief for his reappointment, argued that the removal of the director was unjust and oppressive.

The court was required to decide on several legal issues, including whether there was a seriously arguable case that the removal of the director was in breach of the shareholders agreement, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of an interlocutory order for the reappointment of the director. The court also needed to consider whether the applicant had been prejudiced by not being a director for several months before seeking interlocutory relief, and whether there were any other orders available to protect the applicant's interests.

In its decision, the court found that there was a seriously arguable case that the removal of the director was in breach of the shareholders agreement. However, the court held that the balance of convenience did not favour the granting of an interlocutory order for the reappointment of the director. The court noted that the applicant had not been a director for several months before seeking interlocutory relief, and that there were other orders available to protect the applicant's interests. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for interlocutory relief.

The court's final orders in this case were that the application for interlocutory relief was dismissed, and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application on an indemnity basis. This decision highlights the importance of considering the balance of convenience and the availability of other remedies when deciding whether to grant interlocutory relief in cases of alleged oppression of minority shareholders.