Moage Limited v Jagelman

Moage Limited brought an action against Jagelman alleging, among other things, that Jagelman conspired with other defendants to unlawfully acquire shares in Moage Limited and that Jagelman was liable to account for benefits received by the co-conspirators. Jagelman applied to strike out these claims on the grounds that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The dispute came before the Federal Court of Australia, which had to determine whether the conspiracy alleged was identical to the agreement by which the prohibited acquisition of shares was achieved, whether the pleading alleging conspirator's liability to account for co-conspirators' benefits should be struck out, and whether the deeming provisions had the effect of making an aider and abetter liable for loss.

The court considered whether the conspiracy alleged in the pleading was identical to the agreement by which the prohibited acquisition of shares was achieved. The court held that the conspiracy alleged was not identical to the agreement by which the prohibited acquisition of shares was achieved, as the conspiracy was broader than the agreement, and the agreement did not necessarily involve unlawful means. The court also considered whether the pleading alleging conspirator's liability to account for co-conspirators' benefits should be struck out. The court held that the pleading was sufficient to allege liability to account for co-conspirators' benefits, as it alleged that Jagelman had received benefits from the conspiracy. Finally, the court considered whether the deeming provisions had the effect of making an aider and abetter liable for loss. The court held that the deeming provisions did not have the effect of making an aider and abetter liable for loss, as they only applied to the primary wrongdoer.

The court struck out the claims relating to the conspiracy and the deeming provisions but allowed the claim for liability to account for co-conspirators' benefits to proceed. The court held that the plaintiff had disclosed a reasonable cause of action for liability to account for co-conspirators' benefits. The court did not make any orders for costs.