Pearce v Mulhern

In Pearce v Mulhern, the dispute involves the applicants, who are the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, seeking declarations regarding the shareholdings of Mr Mulhern in several companies. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants sought to clarify Mr Mulhern's shareholdings in the second to sixth respondents as of the date of his bankruptcy, arguing that certain forms submitted to ASIC under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) were inaccurate or misleading.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the declarations sought by the applicants, which would establish Mr Mulhern's shareholdings as of the date of his bankruptcy, could be made based on the evidence provided. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the lack of evidence from the respondents regarding certain transactions recorded in Form 484s could be used to support the inference that those transactions did not occur or should not be considered contrary to the company registers. Additionally, the court considered Mr Mulhern's failure to respond to requests for information as relevant to the case.

The court found that the respondents' failure to produce any evidence of the transactions recorded in the Form 484s supported the inference that those transactions did not occur or should not be treated as evidence contrary to the company registers. This inference was further supported by Mr Mulhern’s non-response to the request for information made by Mr Pearce in February 2010. Based on the evidence presented by Mr Pearce regarding the contents of the company registers, and relying on section 176 of the Act, the court concluded that the declarations and orders sought by the applicants should be granted. This means that the applicants are entitled to be registered as the holders of the shares in the relevant companies, and the respondents were ordered to register the applicants as such.

In summary, the court granted the declarations and orders sought by the applicants, finding that Mr Mulhern held specific shares in the second to fourth respondents as of 3 February 2010, and these shares vested in the applicants as of the date of Mr Mulhern’s bankruptcy.