COURT OF APPEAL
WILLIAMS JA
KEANE JA
Appeal No 7976 of 2005
| NEO LIDO PTY LTD (ACN 095 065 928) and NEOLIDO HOLDINGS PTY LTD | First Appellant/ Second Appellant/ |
| and | |
| PERPETUAL NOMINEES LIMITED and GINETTE MULLER and ROBERT WILLIAM HUTSON | First Respondent/ Second Respondent/ Third Respondent/ |
Appeal No 11018 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND
INVESTMENTS COMMISSION Appellant/Applicant
and
NEOLIDO HOLDINGS PTY LTD First Respondent/
(ACN 102 472 015) Respondent
and
NEO LIDO PTY LTD (ACN 095 065 928) Second Respondent/
Respondent
and
RICHARD WILLIAM SPENCER Third Respondent/
Unknown or n/a
and
SILVANA PEROVICH Fourth Respondent/
Unknown or n/a
Appeal No 11019 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND Appellant/Applicant
INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
and
NEOLIDO HOLDINGS PTY LTD First Respondent/
(ACN 102 472 015) Respondent
and
NEO LIDO PTY LTD (ACN 095 065 928) Second Respondent/
Respondent
and
RICHARD WILLIAM SPENCER Third Respondent/
Unknown or n/a
and
SILVANA PEROVICH Fourth Respondent/
Unknown or n/a
Appeal No 11052 of 2005
RICHARD WILLIAM SPENCER First Appellant/
Unknown or n/a
and
SILVANA PEROVICH Second Appellant/
Unknown or n/a
and
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND First Respondent/
INVESTMENTS PTY LTD Applicant
and
RAYMOND RICHARDS Second Respondent/
Unknown or n/a
and
NEOLIDO HOLDINGS PTY LTD Third Respondent/
(ACN 102 472 015) First Respondent
and
NEO LIDO PTY LTD Fourth Respondent/
Second Respondent
Appeal No 382 of 2006
RICHARD WILLIAM SPENCER Appellant/Applicant
and
SILVANA PEROVICH Appellant/Applicant
and
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND Respondent/Respondent
INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
and
NEOLIDO HOLDINGS PTY LTD Respondent/
(in liquidation) Unknown or n/a
and
NEO LIDO PTY LTD (in liquidation) Respondent/
Unknown or n/a
BRISBANE
..DATE 14/07/2006
ORDER
WILLIAMS JA: All matters will be listed for hearing to commence at 2.15 on Monday. Costs are reserved.
...
-----
- AGLC
- Neo Lido Pty Ltd v Perpetual Nominees Ltd [2006] QCA 257
- Case
- [2006] QCA 257
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal found that Perpetual Nominees did owe a duty of care to the appellants and that this duty was breached. The court held that Perpetual Nominees failed to act with the requisite standard of care and skill, particularly in allowing transactions that were not in the best interests of the appellants. The court noted that Perpetual Nominees did not adequately investigate the financial dealings of the respondents, nor did they take appropriate steps to protect the appellants' interests. The findings also highlighted that the statutory obligations under the Corporations Act were not met, as Perpetual Nominees did not act diligently in their fiduciary role. Based on these findings, the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal and ruled in favour of the appellants.
The final orders of the court directed Perpetual Nominees to compensate Neo Lido Pty Ltd and NeoLido Holdings Pty Ltd for the losses incurred due to the breaches of duty and statutory obligations. The exact quantum of damages was to be determined in a subsequent proceeding. The court also reserved the right to award costs associated with the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.