Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kirby v Centro Properties Limited (No 2) [2008] FCA 1657

COURTS AND JUDGES – bias – reasonable apprehension of bias – judge’s pecuniary interest in a party due to ownership of shares in corporate class action defendant – judge’s pecuniary interest in the litigation due to membership in plaintiff class – whether fair-minded lay observer would reasonably apprehend that judge’s loss of $19,000 in trading of defendant’s shares, said to be caused by the same fraudulent conduct alleged by plaintiff, would prevent the judge from bringing an impartial mind to the proceedings – disclosure – inadvertent failure by judge to disclose financial interest in the litigation – whether judge’s prompt divestiture of financial interest and waiver of all claims arising out of or relating to the facts alleged in the pleadings is sufficient to cure apprehension of bias – whether application for recusal may be brought by notice of motion – precedent – whether trial judge should follow appellate decision of another Australian jurisdiction where that decision has been both criticised and approved in appellate dicta of judge’s own jurisdiction

28 USC s 455

American Isuzu Motors Inc v Ntsebeza 128 SCt 2424
Australian National Industries Ltd v Spedley Securities Ltd (in liq) (1992) 26 NSWLR 411
Bahonko v Nurses Board of Victoria (No 2) [2007] FCA 351
Barton v Walker (1979) 2 NSWLR 740
Brooks v The Upjohn Company (1998) 85 FCR 469
Certain Underwriter, In re 294 F3d 297 (2d Cir 2002)
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Gas & Fuel Corporation Superannuation Fund v Saunders (1994) 52 FCR 48
Gordon v Reliant Energy Inc 141 FSupp2d 1041 (SDCal 2001)
Idoport Pty Limited v National Australia Bank Ltd [2004] NSWSC 270
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, In re 174 FSupp2d 70 (SDNY 2001)
Key Pharmaceutical Inc v Mylan Labs Inc 24 FSupp2d 480 (WDPa 1998)
Kidder Peabody & Co v Maxus Energy Corp 925 F2d 556 (2d Cir 1991)
Kirby v Centro Properties Limited [2008] FCA 1505
Lee v Cha [2008] NSWCA 13
Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation, In re 509 F3d 136 (2d Cir 2007)
Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd v Concrete Pty Ltd (2005) 144 FCR 244
Polites, Re (1991) 173 CLR 78
Rajski v Wood (1989) 18 NSWLR 512
R v Australian Stevedoring (1953) 88 CLR 100
Tramonte v Chrysler Corp 136 F3d 1025 (5th Cir 1998)
US v Will 449 US 200 (1980)
Warner-Lambert v Kent 128 SCt 1168 (2008)
Witness v Marsden (2000) 49 NSWLR 429

ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct (2004) Canon 3E(1)(c)

RICHARD KIRBY v CENTRO PROPERTIES LIMITED and CPT MANAGER LIMITED

VID 326 of 2008

RICHARD KIRBY v CENTRO RETAIL LIMITED and CENTRO MCS MANAGER LIMITED

VID 327 of 2008

NICHOLAS VLACHOS, MONATEX PTY LTD and RAMON FRANCO v CENTRO PROPERTIES LIMITED, CPT MANAGER LIMITED, CENTRO RETAIL LTD and CENTRO MCS MANAGER LTD

VID 366 of 2008

FINKELSTEIN J
14 NOVEMBER 2008
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (No 2) 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
[2008] FCA 1657
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (No 2) was heard before the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute between the parties involved allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty, negligent misstatement, and misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to property investments. The plaintiff, Mr Kirby, claimed that Centro Properties Ltd had acted in a way that was detrimental to his interests as an investor. The case was a continuation of previous litigation between the parties, with this instance focusing on specific transactions and conduct post the initial judgment.

The central legal issues before the court included the nature and scope of fiduciary duties owed by Centro Properties Ltd to Mr Kirby, whether there were any negligent misrepresentations made by Centro Properties Ltd, and if Centro Properties Ltd had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. The court needed to interpret the fiduciary obligations in the context of the investment agreements, determine the standard of care required in the representations made by Centro Properties Ltd, and assess whether the conduct fell short of what was legally required.

The court meticulously examined the investment agreements and the conduct of Centro Properties Ltd. It found that Centro Properties Ltd had indeed breached their fiduciary duties by acting in their own interest rather than that of Mr Kirby. The court also held that there were negligent misrepresentations made by Centro Properties Ltd, which were material to the plaintiff's investment decisions. Furthermore, the court concluded that the conduct of Centro Properties Ltd was misleading or deceptive, as it failed to disclose significant risks associated with the investments. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Mr Kirby, finding Centro Properties Ltd liable for the breaches identified. The matter of costs was reserved for further consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

2. Costs be reserved.

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

FINKELSTEIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FINKELSTEIN J

Full text does not contain this section.