Legal Research
Cases
McNally v Harris (No 3)

McNally v Harris (No 3)

Case [2008] NSWSC 861 8 August 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: McNally v Harris (No. 3) [2008] NSWSC 861

HEARING DATE(S): 07/08/08

JUDGMENT DATE :
8 August 2008

JURISDICTION: Equity

JUDGMENT OF: White J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 8 August 2008

DECISION: See paras 48-51 of judgment.

CATCHWORDS: EQUITY – equitable remedies – equitable compensation – value of shares – appropriate date for assessing equitable compensation is the date of orders

CASES CITED: Canson Enterprises Ltd v Boughton & Co [1991] 3 SCR 534
Youyang Pty Ltd v Minter Ellison Morris Fletcher (2003) 212 CLR 484
Re Dawson [1966] 2 NSWR 211
Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns (a firm) [1996] AC 421
Robinson v Robinson (1851) 1 De GM & G 247; 42 ER 547
Nestle v National Westminster Bank plc [1994] 1 All ER 118
Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (in liq) [2005] NSWSC 482
Jaffray v Marshall [1993] 1 WLR 1285
McNeil v Fultz (1906) 38 SCR 198
Nant-y-Glo & Blaina Ironworks Co v Grave [1878] 12 Ch D 738
Steamship Carisbrook Company v London & Provincial Marine & General Insurance Company [1901] 2 KB 861
Michael v Hart & Co [1902] 1 KB 482
Guerin v R (1984) 13 DLR (4th) 321
Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Stra 505; 93 ER 664
LJP Investments Pty Ltd v Howard Chia Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) (1990) 24 NSWLR 499
Houghton v Immer (No 155) Pty Ltd (1997) 44 NSWLR 46
Tyco Australia Pty Ltd v Optus Networks Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 333
Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332

TEXTS CITED: W F Fratcher, Scott On Trusts, 4th ed (1988) Little, Brown & Co at Vol III
JD Heydon and MJ Leeming, Jacobs’ Law of Trusts in Australia, 7th ed (2006) LexisNexis Butterworths

PARTIES: Katharine Myfanwy McNally & 7 Ors
v
Nicholas Peter Harris & 5 Ors (No. 3)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5203/05

COUNSEL: Plaintiffs: TGR Parker SC
1st - 4th Defendants: DEJ Ryan & DV Robinson
5th & 6th Defendants: B McManus

SOLICITORS: Plaintiffs: Judd Commercial Lawyers
1st - 4th Defendants: Horton Rhodes
5th & 6th Defendants: Colin Biggers & Paisley

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

WHITE J

08/08/08

5203/05 Katharine Myfanwy McNally & 7 Ors v Nicholas Peter Harris & 5 Ors (No. 3)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: In their statement of claim the plaintiffs sought orders for the payment of equitable compensation and for the tracing and taking account of the proceeds of disposal of the Oxiana shares.

2 In my reasons for judgment I held that the plaintiffs were entitled to either remedy at their election. They have elected to be paid equitable compensation.

3 The question is how the quantum of equitable compensation should be assessed.

4 The Oxiana shares were disposed of by Harris Johnsson Nominees and Harris Johnsson Partners between 2003 and 2005 for prices ranging between 56 cents and $1.22. It is common ground that equitable compensation was not to be calculated on the value of those shares at the date of…

Details

AGLC: McNally v Harris (No 3) [2008] NSWSC 861
Case: [2008] NSWSC 861
Decision Date: 8 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In McNally v Harris (No 3), the court considered the appropriate date for assessing equitable compensation for shares, a matter arising from a dispute between the parties regarding the sale of shares. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legal issues surrounding this valuation, which had significant implications for the equitable remedies available to the plaintiff.

The primary legal issue was identifying the correct date to assess the value of the shares for equitable compensation purposes. The plaintiff argued that the value should be assessed on the date the original orders were made, while the defendant contended that it should be assessed on the date of the subsequent orders. This dispute hinged on whether the equitable compensation was a pre-existing debt or a future obligation that crystallised on the date of the orders.

The court resolved that the appropriate date for assessing the value of the shares is the date of the orders. The reasoning was that equitable compensation represents a future obligation that only becomes fixed upon the making of the orders. The court held that until the orders were made, the amount of compensation could not be determined. This interpretation aligns with the principles of equitable compensation, ensuring that the compensation reflects the true loss incurred by the plaintiff.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the value of the shares for equitable compensation purposes is to be assessed on the date the orders were made. This decision provides clarity for future cases involving equitable compensation and the valuation of shares, ensuring that the compensation accurately reflects the loss suffered by the plaintiff.

Orders