SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Li & Anor v Wu |
Citation: | [2019] ACTCA 14 |
Hearing Date: | 13 February 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 16 May 2019 |
Before: | Elkaim, Loukas-Karlsson & Rangiah JJ |
Decision: | See [108] |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – In General and Right of Appeal – Application for leave to appeal against primary judgment – good faith and solid foundation in derivative action |
Legislation Cited | Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 237 Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 40(1)(g), 52(2) Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) ss 11(1), 33 |
Cases Cited: | Aliprandi v Griffith Vintners Pty Ltd (1991) 6 ACSR 250 |
Parties: | Yuxin Li (First Applicant) Hong Chen (Second Applicant) Tao Wu (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr Neal with Mr Flecknoe-Brown (First and Second Applicant) Mr Karam with Mr Thomas (Respondent) |
| Solicitors WMG Legal (First and Second Applicant) McInnes Wilson Lawyers (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 47 of 2018 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory Before: McWilliam AsJ Date of Decision: 9 April 2018 Case Title: Wu v Li Citation: [2018] ACTSC 224 |
THE COURT:
On 17 August 2018, Associate Justice McWilliam granted Mr Wu (Respondent) leave to commence a derivative proceeding in the name of Golden Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (Golden Constructions) against Mr Li (First Applicant) and Ms Chen (Second Applicant). This is an application for leave to appeal against that judgment.
In their draft notice of appeal, Mr Li and Ms Chen allege that the primary judge erred:
(a)in failing to be satisfied that Mr Wu lacked good faith in pursuing the proposed derivative proceeding;
(b)in failing to conclude that the proposed derivative proceeding lacked a solid foundation.
For the reasons that follow, we consider that leave to appeal should be granted, and that the…
Continue reading Li v Wu
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Li v Wu [2019] ACTCA 14
- Case
- [2019] ACTCA 14
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to be granted leave to appeal. This involved an assessment of whether the proposed appeal had a good faith basis and a solid foundation, as required for derivative actions.
The Court considered the principles governing applications for leave to appeal, particularly in the context of derivative actions. It was necessary to determine if the applicant had established an arguable case that the primary judge had erred in law or fact, thereby justifying the intervention of the appellate court. The Court's reasoning would have focused on the strength of the grounds of appeal presented and whether they met the threshold for granting leave.
The Court of Appeal made orders in relation to the application for leave to appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [108]
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.