In the matter of E&P Investments Limited as responsible entity of the US Masters Residential Property Fund

The case involves E&P Investments Limited, as the responsible entity for the US Masters Residential Property Fund, and various defendants. The primary dispute centres on the service of proceedings and the holding of a general meeting of unitholders. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was tasked with determining whether the confirmation of substituted service of proceedings interstate is subject to the requirements of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth). Additionally, the court had to ascertain whether the defendants held 5% of the votes carried by units at the time the general meeting of unitholders was called. Finally, the court needed to decide on the appropriate allocation of costs, considering whether an order should be made against one or all of the defendants.

The court first considered the statutory requirements for interstate substituted service of proceedings, as outlined in the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth). It examined whether the specific provisions of the Act applied to the confirmation of substituted service in this case. The court then moved to analyse the voting rights of the defendants, focusing on whether they held 5% of the votes carried by units at the time the general meeting was convened. This analysis required a detailed review of the relevant unit trust documentation and the voting rights attached to the units held by the defendants. Lastly, the court assessed the principles of costs in litigation to determine the appropriate allocation of costs among the parties.

The court found that the confirmation of substituted service of proceedings interstate was indeed subject to the requirements of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth). It concluded that the defendants did not hold 5% of the votes carried by units at the time of the general meeting. The court held that the appropriate allocation of costs should be made against one defendant, considering the specific circumstances of the case and the contributions of each party to the proceedings. The final orders of the court reflected these findings and directed the responsible entity to take necessary actions based on the court's determinations regarding service, voting rights, and costs.