Morris v Riverwild Management Pty Ltd & Ors - [2012] HCATrans 72

[2012] HCATrans 072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M142 of 2011

B e t w e e n -
MICHAEL MORRIS
Applicant
and
RIVERWILD MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (ACN 070 089 860)
First Respondent
JOHN CARLYLE KENLEY
Second Respondent
CATHERINE ELIZABETH HALLIDAY
Third Respondent
KENNETH NOEL JOHNSON
Fourth Respondent
BRUCE MICHAEL STILLMAN
Fifth Respondent
COOLUMBOOKA HOLIDNGS PTY LTD (ACN 005 783 933)
Sixth Respondent
PLUMPTON PLACE PTY LTD (ACN 005 644 226)
Seventh Respondent
HEADINGTON INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 006 747 682)
Eighth Respondent
JASPER NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 008 518 269)
Ninth Respondent
GRANTALI PTY LTD (ACN 005 524 854)
Tenth Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM MELBOURNE BY VIDEO LINK TO SYDNEY

ON FRIDAY, 9 MARCH 2012, AT 1.31 PM

__________________

MR B.W. WALKER, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR A.M. DINELLI, for the applicant. (instructed by DLA Piper Australia)

MR P.B. MURDOCH, QC: May if please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR J.D. PIZER, for the respondents. (instructed by Giannakopoulos Solicitors)

HAYNE J: Yes, Mr Walker.

MR WALKER: Your Honours, that the principle against double recovery is important cannot be overstated. It is why there is an equity to obtain judicial relief against its occurrence.

CRENNAN J: But is this really a double recovery case or more correctly described as a case about the indemnity in relation to costs, as Justice Nettle put it?

MR WALKER: Yes, at application book 46, paragraph 44, I think, is the passage to which your Honour is drawing attention. In our submission, these are not mutually exclusive concepts. In our submission, the vice, among other things, that is sought to be prevented by application properly enforced of the rule against double recovery is that it prevents, among other things, the indemnity rule from being breached as well.

The equity of contribution is in the same general area of operation. They are not displaced by giving attention to the indemnity rule. Rather they are all serving a set of congruent values and principles in the administration of justice and, in particular, in the supervision of the enforcement of remedies. It is for those reasons, in our submission, that the importance of the equity and the fact that it will be occasioned by a number of different circumstances raises the question and, we say, urges the merit of a grant of special leave in this case for the following reasons.

We have seen in Michael Wilson & Partners recently an, as it were, incidental importance given to the principle in order to lay to rest a spectre that had been raised during argument in that case. The equity would apply to the substance of the matter to ensure that there would not be double recovery. The same thing applies, with respect, in relation to the notion that…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Morris v Riverwild Management Pty Ltd & Ors 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: [2012] HCATrans 72
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Morris v Riverwild Management Pty Ltd & Ors* concerned a dispute between the applicant, Mr. Morris, and the respondents, Riverwild Management Pty Ltd and others. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine the legal issues arising from the lower court's decision. Specifically, the appeal concerned the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth) and potentially related common law principles concerning corporate governance or shareholder rights, given the context of a dispute involving a proprietary limited company.

The reasoning of Hayne and Crennan JJ, as indicated by their participation, would have involved a careful analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and any applicable case law. Their Honours would have considered the arguments presented by the parties regarding the correct legal interpretation and the application of those principles to the facts of the case. The judgment would have articulated the legal principles governing the matters in dispute, likely focusing on the duties and obligations of directors and the rights of shareholders within the corporate structure.

The provided text does not contain sufficient information to detail the final orders or outcome of the appeal.

Orders