McGEACHIE & ORS -v- CLARK & ORS [2005] WASC 177
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2005] WASC 177 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1901/2005 | 19 JULY 2005 | |
| Coram: | COMMISSIONER ODES QC | 11/08/05 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed with costs to be taxed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | CATHERINE JOY McGEACHIE RICHARD MITFORD ROWELL GRAHAM SYDNEY BENSTEAD AURELIA MARIA MAZZOLENI LEE FRANCES NASH WESLEY IAN CHARLES NASH JAN IRVINE AMRIT KENDRICK GARY KENDRICK RICHARD CLARK DENNIS BEERE JURGEN WERNER PREUSS GAVAN KELLY SILVER FOX INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 081 888 048) MIDWAY ASSET PTY LTD (ACN 097 037) CHURCHLANDS HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 098 551 645) PETER ANDRE GRANT |
Catchwords: | Urgent interlocutory injunctions Orders to prevent resolutions being put at annual general meeting Approach of court Exception to general rule of non-intervention |
Legislation: | Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 19 |
Case References: | Carr Boyd Minerals Limited v Ashton Mining Limited and Ors (1989) 15 ACLR 599 Hopkins Professional Services Pty Ltd v Foyster Holdings Pty Ltd (2001) 39 ACSR 519 Paringa Mining & Exploration Co plc v North Flinders Mines Limited (1988) 52 SASR 22 Pettaras v Pettaras [2004] NSWSC 1212 Tang v Bongreen Pty Ltd (2003) 47 ACSR 400 Uniting Church of Australia Property Trust (NSW) v Macquarie Radio Network Pty Ltd (1997) 24 ACSR 721 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- RICHARD MITFORD ROWELL
First Plaintiffs
GRAHAM SYDNEY BENSTEAD
AURELIA MARIA MAZZOLENI
Second Plaintiffs
LEE FRANCES NASH
WESLEY IAN CHARLES NASH
Third Plaintiffs
JAN IRVINE
Fourth Plaintiff
AMRIT KENDRICK
GARY KENDRICK
Fifth Plaintiff
AND
RICHARD CLARK
First Defendant
DENNIS BEERE
Second Defendant
(Page 2)
- JURGEN WERNER PREUSS
Third Defendant
GAVAN KELLY
Fourth Defendant
SILVER FOX INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 081 888 048)
Fifth Defendant
MIDWAY ASSET PTY LTD (ACN 097 037)
Sixth Defendant
CHURCHLANDS HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 098 551 645)
Seventh Defendant
PETER ANDRE GRANT
Eighth Defendant
Catchwords:
Urgent interlocutory injunctions - Orders to prevent resolutions being put at annual general meeting - Approach of court - Exception to general rule of non-intervention
Legislation:
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 19
Result:
Application dismissed with costs to be taxed
(Page 3)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
First Plaintiffs : Mr I A Morison
Second Plaintiffs : Mr I A Morison
Third Plaintiffs : Mr I A Morison
Fourth Plaintiff : Mr I A Morison
Fifth Plaintiff : Mr I A Morison
First Defendant : Mr W S Martin QC
Second Defendant : Mr W S Martin QC
Third Defendant : Mr W S Martin QC
Fourth Defendant : Mr W S Martin QC
Fifth Defendant : Mr W S Martin QC
Sixth Defendant : Mr W S Martin QC
Seventh Defendant : Mr W S Martin QC
Continue reading McGEACHIE v Clark
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- McGEACHIE v Clark [2005] WASC 177
- Case
- [2005] WASC 177
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiffs, who are members of a strata company, sought an urgent ex parte interlocutory injunction to prevent the passage of certain motions at the annual general meeting. The primary concern of the plaintiffs was to avoid any alteration or termination of the Strata Plan, which consisted of 118 hectares of common property. The legal issues involved the general reluctance of courts to intervene in meetings of corporations or strata companies and the exceptional circumstances under which such intervention might be justified. The court considered the precedents set in cases such as Uniting Church of Australia Property Trust (NSW) v Macquarie Radio Network Pty Ltd, Hopkins Professional Services Pty Ltd v Foyster Holdings Pty Ltd, Paringa Mining & Exploration Co plc v North Flinders Mines Limited, and Carr Boyd Minerals Limited v Ashton Mining Limited and Ors. These cases emphasised the fundamental right of members to convene meetings and move resolutions, and the courts' reluctance to interfere unless there was clear evidence of serious misconduct or irreparable harm. In this case, the proposed resolutions at the annual general meeting did not relate to the alteration of the Strata Plan or the re-subdivision of lots, and therefore did not fall within the exceptional circumstances for court intervention. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not established a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience did not favour disturbing the status quo. Consequently, the application for the interlocutory injunction was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.