MORRIS & ANOR -v- A1 POOLS PTY LTD & ORS [2000] WASCA 335

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 335
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	FUL:120/2000	Heard:	25 SEPTEMBER 2000
Coram:	IPP J MILLER J	Delivered:	10/11/00
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed in part
PDF Version

Parties:	TREVOR WILLIAM MORRIS HICOAST PTY LTD (ACN 085 823 810) A1 POOLS PTY LTD (ACN 078 129 905) GC CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 002 837 588) GARY ALLAN GRISBROOK
Catchwords:	Procedure Supreme Court procedure Power of court to extend time prescribed by O 63A r 3(1) Application to set aside default judgment Onus of proof on applicant Corporations Management and administration Directors Fiduciary obligations Confidential information Applicant utilising knowledge of tender price obtained as director of respondent to tender in competition with respondent
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 63A r 3(1), O 63A r 5(2), O 3 r 5
Case References:	Eaton Developments Pty Ltd v NTC Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 552 Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] 1 Ch 117 Government Employees Superannuation Board v Martin (1997) 19 WAR 224 Green v Bestobell Industries Pty Ltd (1982) WAR 1 Natural Extracts Pty Ltd v Stotter (1997) 24 ACSR 110 Rolland v Bank of Western Australia Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980498; 3 September 1998 Weldon & Company Services Pty Ltd v Harbinson [2000] NSWSC 272 Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 104 ALR 621 Evans v Bartlam [1937] AC 473 Gillon & Anor v Kyle, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 9123; 16 October 1991 Jacobs v Booth's Distillery Co (1901) 85 LT 262 Niemann v Electronic Industries Ltd [1978] VR 431 Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598 Whitehall Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v Custom Credit Corp Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 9189; 13 December 1991 Wing Luck Foods v Lay Choo Lim [1989] WAR 358

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : MORRIS & ANOR -v- A1 POOLS PTY LTD & ORS [2000] WASCA 335 CORAM : IPP J

MILLER J

HEARD : 25 SEPTEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 10 NOVEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : FUL 120 of 2000 BETWEEN : TREVOR WILLIAM MORRIS

First Applicant

HICOAST PTY LTD (ACN 085 823 810)

Second Applicant

AND

A1 POOLS PTY LTD (ACN 078 129 905)

First Respondent

GC CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 002 837 588)

Second Respondent

GARY ALLAN GRISBROOK

Third Respondent

Catchwords:

Procedure - Supreme Court procedure - Power of court to extend time prescribed by O 63A r 3(1) - Application to set aside default judgment - Onus of proof on applicant

(Page 2)

Corporations - Management and administration - Directors - Fiduciary obligations - Confidential information - Applicant utilising knowledge of tender price obtained as director of respondent to tender in competition with respondent

Legislation:

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 Morris v A1 Pools Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Morris v A1 Pools Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 335
Case: [2000] WASCA 335
Decision Date: 10 NOVEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Morris v A1 Pools Pty Ltd arose in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Morris, sought to set aside a default judgment obtained by the defendant, A1 Pools Pty Ltd, on the grounds that he had been unable to respond due to illness. Additionally, Morris argued that he had a defence based on the defendant's alleged breach of fiduciary duty and misuse of confidential information. The court had to decide whether Morris had met the onus of proof required to set aside the default judgment and whether there was a valid defence based on the fiduciary obligations and confidential information.

The legal issues before the court were whether Morris had established sufficient grounds to set aside the default judgment and whether there was a valid defence against the defendant's claim based on fiduciary obligations and misuse of confidential information. In terms of setting aside the default judgment, the court considered whether Morris had provided satisfactory evidence of his inability to respond within the prescribed time and whether there was a bona fide defence on the merits. The court also needed to determine if Morris's use of confidential information obtained as a director of the respondent constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found that Morris had met the onus of proof required to set aside the default judgment as he had provided satisfactory evidence of his inability to respond due to illness. The court acknowledged that Morris's actions in using confidential information obtained as a director of the respondent to tender in competition with the respondent did constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. However, the court determined that this breach did not entirely absolve the respondent from liability as Morris had also failed to meet some of his own obligations. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, and leave to appeal was granted. The final orders included the setting aside of the default judgment and a remittal to the lower court for further consideration of the merits of Morris's defence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed in part

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.