Meehan v Glazier Holdings Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 42 min read

Reported Decision:

 (2002) 54 NSWLR 146

New South Wales


Court of Appeal

CITATION: Meehan & Ors v Glazier Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 22
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40172/01
HEARING DATE(S): 12 February 2002
JUDGMENT DATE:
7 March 2002

PARTIES :
Graham Meehan, Anthony Murphy and Treykell Pty Ltd - Appellants
Glazier Holdings Pty Ltd - Respondent
JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Beazley JA at 2; Giles JA at 3
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Equity Division
LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 		ED 4905/97
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :		 Austin J
COUNSEL: M L D Einfeld QC & S G Habib - Appellants
A L J Bannon SC & P L Dodson - Respondent
SOLICITORS: Paul Bard - Appellants
Henry Davis York - Respondent
CATCHWORDS: EQUITY - order for accounts in common form - application to vary order to have accounts taken on wilful default basis - whether order a final order which can not be varied - whether grounds established for accounts on wilful default basis. D.
CASES CITED:
 Bailey v Marinoff (1971) 125 CLR 529;
Ballas Theophilos (No 2) (1957) 97 CLR 186;
Barber v Mackrell (1879) 12 Ch D 534;
Barnes v Addy (1874) 9 Ch App 244;
Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd (No 2) (1980) 1 Ch 515;
Derrawee Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v McConachie (Handley JA, 24 February 1995, unreported);
Gava v Grljusich (WAFC, 18 September 1997, unreported; on remittal (1999) WASC 13);
In re Barclay; Barclay v Andrew (1899) 1 Ch 674;
In re Jerome (1907) 2 Ch 145;
In re Symons (1882) 21 Ch D 757;
In re Wood; Ebert v Union Trustee Company of Australia Ltd (1961) Qd R 375;
In re Wrightson: Wrightson v Cooke (1908) 1 Ch 789;
In re Youngs; Doggett v Revett (1885) 30 Ch D 421;
Job v Job (1877) 6 Ch D 562;
Kara Kar Holdings Pty Ltd v Brookton Holdings No 5 Pty Ltd (CA, 27 March 1997, unreported);
Kraft v Kupperwasser (1991) 22 NSWLR 236;
Mayer v Murray (1878) 8 Ch D 424;
Partington v Reynolds (1858) 4 Drew 253; 62 ER 98;
re Tebbs (1976) 2 All ER 858;
Russell v Russell (1891) 17 VLR 729;
Sleight v Lawson (1857) 3 K & J 292;
Smith v Davies (1885) 31 Ch D 595;
Southern Cross Exploration NL v Fire and All Risks Insurance Company (No 2) (1990) 21 NSWLR 200.
DECISION: (1) Appeal allowed; (2) Paragraphs 1, 2, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of the orders of Austin J made on 19 March 2001 set aside and para 3 of the orders varied by the deletion of the words "as varied by order 2 above"; (4) Remit the proceedings to the Equity Division for such further directions, if any, as may be appropriate for the taking of accounts; (4) The respondent pay the appellants' costs of the notices of motion filed on 1 May 2000 and 30 August 2000 and of the appeal,…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Meehan v Glazier Holdings Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2002] NSWCA 22
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Meehan v Glazier Holdings Pty Ltd concerned an appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal from orders made by Austin J in the Equity Division. The dispute involved an application to vary an earlier order for accounts to be taken on a wilful default basis.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the initial order for accounts was a final order that could not be varied, and if not, whether the grounds established were sufficient to justify taking the accounts on a wilful default basis.

The Court of Appeal held that the order for accounts was not a final order and could be varied. It further determined that the evidence presented did not establish the necessary grounds for accounts to be taken on a wilful default basis. The court allowed the appeal, set aside certain paragraphs of the original orders, varied another, and remitted the proceedings for further directions regarding the taking of accounts. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal allowed; (2) Paragraphs 1, 2, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of the orders of Austin J made on 19 March 2001 set aside and para 3 of the orders varied by the deletion of the words "as varied by order 2 above"; (4) Remit the proceedings to the Equity Division for such further directions, if any, as may be appropriate for the taking of accounts; (4) The respondent pay the appellants' costs of the notices of motion filed on 1 May 2000 and 30 August 2000 and of the appeal, and have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act if qualified.

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.