Legal Research
Cases
Mancini v Mancini

Mancini v Mancini

Case [1999] NSWSC 799 6 August 1999

Director Removal

Power of Attorney

Articles of Association

Quorum

Good Faith

Corporate Law & Governance

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: (1999) 17 ACLC 1570

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Mancini v Mancini [1999] NSWSC 799

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): 2955/99

HEARING DATE(S): 19 & 20/07/99, 26/7/99-28/7/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 August 1999

PARTIES :

Valda Lynne Mancini V John Peter Mancini

JUDGMENT OF: Bryson J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr C Hodgekiss with Ms E. Glover for Plaintiff
Ms McColl SC, Mr Beale and Mr Chrysostomou for Defendant

SOLICITORS: Coleman & Greigg for Plaintiff
McGrath Dicembre and Company for Defendant

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - director - removal - purported removal of one of two directors by the other director at a meeting where she claimed to act in two capacities, first as herself and secondly under power of attorney for the other - removal was ineffective for (1) non-service in fact of the default notice which would have given rise to power of attorney (2) no notice of directors' meeting (3) attendance and voting at directors' meeting was not an act authorised by PA (4) Attorney under power cannot represent a director and provisions of Articles for alternate directors not complied with (5) one director in two capacities cannot form quorum of 2 (6) lack of good faith in purported exercise of power (7) lack of power of directors to remove a director by resolution, as power conferred by Articles on the company.

CASES CITED: News Limited v Australian Rugby Football League Limited (1996) 139 ALR 193 at 298 and 299
Tobin v Broadbent (1947) 75 CLR 378 at 390-391
Equity Nominees Limited v Tucker (1967) 116 CLR 518 at 526
AW & LM Forrest Pty Ltd v Beamish (Young J unreported 27 August 1998) at p.6

DECISION: See paragraph 46

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BRYSON J.

FRIDAY 6 AUGUST 1999

2955/99 VALDA L. MANCINI v JOHN P. MANCINI
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This judgment relates to Mr Mancini’s Notice of Motion dated 20 July 1999. The parties were formerly married to each other; their marriage has been dissolved. They were, until 29 June 1999 the only directors of three companies which are the subject of claims for relief in the plaintiff’s Summons dated 1 July 1999. Each held one of the two issued shares in each of Wesco Industries Pty Ltd, Wesco Quarry Products Pty Ltd and Wesco Ready Mixed Concrete Pty Ltd. These and several others controlled by the same persons, are referred to as the Wesco Group. The plaintiff and the defendant are the only shareholders and they are the persons most substantially interested in the companies’ affairs. 2 On 29 June 1999 there were held what were or purported to be meetings of the directors of Wesco Industries Pty Ltd, Wesco Ready Mixed Concrete Pty Ltd and Wesco Quarry Products Pty Ltd. At those meetings Mrs Mancini purportedly resolved to appoint Mr Ray Azzopardi and to remove Mr Mancini as a director. The plaintiff Mrs Mancini’s case is that the defendant Mr Mancini ceased to be a director…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Mancini v Mancini

Details

AGLC: Mancini v Mancini [1999] NSWSC 799
Case: [1999] NSWSC 799
Decision Date: 6 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mancini v Mancini concerned the validity of the removal of one director by another in a private company. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the procedural and legal validity of the removal of a director, Mr. Mancini, by his co-director, Ms. Mancini. She acted in a dual capacity at a meeting, as herself and under a power of attorney for Mr. Mancini. The court was tasked with deciding whether the removal of Mr. Mancini as a director was valid under the company’s constitution and applicable law.

The court examined several legal issues, including whether the requisite notice was served, whether there was proper notice of the meeting, if Ms. Mancini’s actions under the power of attorney were authorised, if the Articles permitted Ms. Mancini to represent Mr. Mancini, if the quorum requirements were met, and if the removal was conducted in good faith. Additionally, the court assessed whether the directors had the power to remove a director by resolution, given the Articles conferred this power specifically on the company.

The court found that the removal was ineffective due to multiple reasons: the default notice under the power of attorney was not actually served; proper notice of the meeting was not given; Ms. Mancini’s actions under the power of attorney were not authorised; she could not represent Mr. Mancini under the power of attorney; the Articles' provisions for alternate directors were not followed; having one director in two capacities did not constitute a quorum of two; and there was a lack of good faith in the exercise of the power. Furthermore, the court held that the directors did not have the power to remove a director by resolution, as the Articles explicitly conferred this power on the company itself. Therefore, the removal was declared invalid.

As a result of the court's findings, the removal of Mr. Mancini as a director was quashed. The court did not provide further orders beyond the declaration of invalidity, leaving the internal governance and directorial composition of the company to be resolved by the parties or through further legal proceedings if necessary.

Orders