Lenark Pty Limited v TheChairmen1 Pty Ltd

The plaintiff, Lenark Pty Limited, sought relief from the court on the basis that the conduct of the defendants, TheChairmen1 Pty Ltd, was oppressive towards the plaintiff company. The plaintiff's principal was a director of both companies and alleged that certain actions taken by the defendants were oppressive. The defendants raised several defences, some of which referred to the allegedly wrongful conduct of the plaintiff's principal as a director. The plaintiff objected to these parts of the defences, arguing that the conduct in question was unknown to the defendants at the time of the alleged oppression and therefore not relevant to the case. Additionally, the plaintiff sought to set aside certain subpoenas issued by the defendants, arguing that some were oppressive or irrelevant, while others were premature.

The court was required to decide whether the fact that the defendants were allegedly unaware of the plaintiff's principal's conduct was relevant to the question of oppression. The court also needed to determine whether the parts of the defences that referred to this conduct should be struck out. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether certain subpoenas should be set aside as oppressive or irrelevant, and whether others should be set aside as premature.

The court held that the fact that the defendants were allegedly unaware of the plaintiff's principal's conduct was not relevant to the question of oppression. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's principal's conduct, regardless of whether it was known to the defendants, could still be considered in determining whether the defendants' conduct was oppressive. The court found that the parts of the defences that referred to this conduct were relevant and should not be struck out. Regarding the subpoenas, the court found that some were oppressive or irrelevant and should be set aside, while others were premature and should also be set aside. The court concluded that the defendants' conduct was not oppressive and dismissed the plaintiff's application.

The court ordered that the defendants' costs of the application be paid by the plaintiff. The court also ordered that the defendants' costs of the subpoenas that were set aside be paid by the defendants.