Legal Research
Cases
Peters v Coastace

Peters v Coastace

Case [2006] NSWSC 289 13 April 2006

Standing

Costs

Derivative Proceedings

Corporate Law & Governance

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
57 ACSR 241
(2006) 24 ACLC 443

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Peters v Coastace [2006] NSWSC 289

HEARING DATE(S): 10 & 11 April 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
13 April 2006

JURISDICTION: Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Austin J

DECISION: Interested parties joined as defendants and ordered to pay plaintiff's costs of leave proceeding

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - application under Part 2F.1A for leave to sue on behalf of the company - proposed derivative proceeding against co-shareholder/director and recipient of company property - co-shareholder/director and recipient appear as "interested parties" - whether interested parties should be joined as defendants when only remaining issue is costs - whether plaintiff should have order for costs before resolution of derivative proceeding and before a forthcoming application for the appointment of a provisional liquidator

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 237, 242
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Rules 6.24, 6.26, 42.3

CASES CITED: Carpenter v Pioneer Park Pty Ltd (2004) 186 FLR 104
HPM Pty Ltd v Fear [2002] WASCA 249
Jeans v Deangrove Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 84
Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178
Leicester v Walton (Court of Appeal of New South Wales, unreported, 7 November 1995, BC 9501770)
News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League (1996) 20 ACSR 637
Resource Equities Ltd v Weston Ventures Pty Ltd (2004) 51 ACSR 436
Roach v Winnote Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 231
Swansson v RA Pratt Properties Pty Ltd (2002) 55 NSWLR 166
Wentworth v Wentworth (2001) 52 NSWLR 602

PARTIES: Roger William Peters (P)
Coastace Pty Ltd (D)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 6537/05

COUNSEL: A M Gruzman (P)
D W Elliott (Interested Parties)

SOLICITORS: Shipton & Associates (P)
Consolidated Lawyers (Interested Parties)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST

AUSTIN J

THURSDAY 13 APRIL

6537/05 ROGER WILLIAM PETERS V COASTACE PTY LTD

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These reasons for judgment relate to the plaintiff's application for an order that the costs of a proceeding for leave under s 237 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) be paid by two persons described as "interested parties", but not formally joined as defendants in the proceeding.

2 The plaintiff and Rodney Charles Bate are the sole shareholders of Coastace Pty Ltd ("the Company"), each holding one ordinary share. The directors of the Company are Mr Bate and Louella Jane Peters (the plaintiff's wife).

3 By an originating process filed on 23 December 2005, joining only the Company as a defendant, the plaintiff applied for an order under s 237 for leave to commence a proceeding against Mr Bate and his wife, Felicity Catherine Bate. According to the draft statement of claim annexed to the affidavit of Mrs Peters, the Company as plaintiff will allege against Mr and Mrs Bate as defendants that Mr Bate transferred a total amount of $490,000 out of the company's bank account and into the bank account of Mrs Bate, in breach of his…

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 Peters v Coastace

Details

AGLC: Peters v Coastace [2006] NSWSC 289
Case: [2006] NSWSC 289
Decision Date: 13 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Peters, sought leave to bring a derivative action against the respondents, Coastace and others, for breaches of director’s duties and misuse of corporate assets. The applicants, who were minority shareholders, had already succeeded in a claim for equitable relief to freeze the respondents' assets pending the outcome of the proceedings. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the respondents should be joined as defendants in the proceedings, and if the applicants should be granted an order for costs before the resolution of the derivative action and before a forthcoming application for the appointment of a provisional liquidator.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondents, who were co-shareholders and directors of the company, and who were recipients of the company property, should be joined as defendants in the proceedings. The court also had to consider whether the applicants should be granted an order for costs before the resolution of the derivative action and before a forthcoming application for the appointment of a provisional liquidator. The court had to balance the need for fairness and just resolution of the proceedings against the need to protect the interests of the company and its shareholders.

The court held that the respondents should not be joined as defendants in the proceedings, as the only remaining issue was costs, and the applicants had already succeeded in obtaining equitable relief to freeze the respondents' assets. The court also held that the applicants should not be granted an order for costs before the resolution of the derivative action and before a forthcoming application for the appointment of a provisional liquidator, as the applicants had not demonstrated that they were entitled to such an order. The court held that the applicants' claim for costs should be determined as part of the overall resolution of the proceedings, and that the applicants should not be granted an order for costs before the resolution of the derivative action and before a forthcoming application for the appointment of a provisional liquidator.

The court refused the applicants leave to bring a derivative action against the respondents, and dismissed the application for an order for costs. The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated that they were entitled to such an order, and that the claim for costs should be determined as part of the overall resolution of the proceedings.

Orders