King v AG Australia Holdings Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 6 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

King v AG Australia Holdings Ltd [2002] FCAFC 230

SHANE ROBERT KING v AG AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD & ORS
N 955 of 1999

SACKVILLE, HELY & STONE JJ
SYDNEY
12 AUGUST 2002


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 955 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

SHANE ROBERT KING
APPLICANT

AND:

AG AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT

GRANT SAMUEL & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

DAVID MORTIMER
THIRD RESPONDENT

BRUCE HOGAN
FOURTH RESPONDENT

STEWART STEFFEY
FIFTH RESPONDENT

RONALD ASHTON
SIXTH RESPONDENT

MARINA DARLING
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

ANDREW KALDOR
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

LLOYD LANGE
NINTH RESPONDENT

DAVID O'HALLORAN
TENTH RESPONDENT

IAN POLLARD
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

SACKVILLE, HELY & STONE JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

12 AUGUST 2002

WHERE MADE:          SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of 11 July 2002 be dismissed.

2.The first respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the first respondent’s application for leave to appeal.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 955 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

SHANE ROBERT KING
APPLICANT

AND:

AG AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT

GRANT SAMUEL & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

DAVID MORTIMER
THIRD RESPONDENT

BRUCE HOGAN
FOURTH RESPONDENT

STEWART STEFFEY
FIFTH RESPONDENT

RONALD ASHTON
SIXTH RESPONDENT

MARINA DARLING
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

ANDREW KALDOR
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

LLOYD LANGE
NINTH RESPONDENT

DAVID O'HALLORAN
TENTH RESPONDENT

IAN POLLARD
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

SACKVILLE, HELY & STONE JJ

DATE:

12 AUGUST 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment delivered by the primary Judge on 11 July 2002 (“the interlocutory judgment”). Leave to appeal from such a judgment is required by s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (“Federal Court Act”).

  2. The proceedings are representative proceedings commenced on 31 August 1999, pursuant to Part IVA of the Federal Court Act.  The applicant seeks relief on behalf of himself and the represented group by reason of what is alleged to be misleading and deceptive conduct in the course of a take-over by AMP Insurance Holdings Ltd of GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (“GIO”) in early 1999.  GIO is now known as AG Australia Holdings Ltd. 

  3. The represented group is defined in the seventh further amended statement of claim as follows:

    “The group members to whom this proceeding relates (‘the group members’) are all persons who were registered as owners of shares in GIO continuously between 25 August 1998 and 4 January 1999 (‘the relevant period’) and who did not accept the takeover offers for those shares made by AMP Insurance Investment Holdings Pty Ltd (‘AMP’) on 25 August 1998 (and varied on 9 December 1998) by reason of the conduct alleged in this Seventh Further Amended Statement of Claim of all (or alternatively, any) of the Respondents and who suffered loss as a consequence, but the group members do not…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read King v AG Australia Holdings Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2002] FCAFC 230
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

King brought an action against AG Australia Holdings Ltd for damages for breach of contract, alleging that the defendant had failed to provide a contract for the supply of goods as promised. AG Australia Holdings Ltd denied the allegations and counterclaimed for unpaid debts. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the judge found in favour of AG Australia Holdings Ltd, dismissing King’s claim and finding in favour of the defendant on the counterclaim. King sought leave to appeal the decision, which was ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The legal issues in this case were whether the court erred in finding that the contract for the supply of goods was not binding and whether the court correctly found that King owed debts to AG Australia Holdings Ltd. The Court of Appeal found that there was no error in the lower court’s decision and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the contract for the supply of goods was not binding as it lacked the essential terms required to be enforceable. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal found that the evidence supported the lower court’s finding that King owed debts to AG Australia Holdings Ltd. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and AG Australia Holdings Ltd was awarded its costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of 11 July 2002 be dismissed.

2. The first respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the first respondent’s application for leave to appeal.

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.