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 429ABA 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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2008] FCA 1657
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: FINKELSTEIN J
Full text does not contain this section.