PRICE -v- POWERS & ORS [2006] WASCA 262
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2006] WASCA 262 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:90/2005 | 11 SEPTEMBER 2006 | |
| Coram: | MARTIN CJ WHEELER JA PULLIN JA | 30/11/06 | |
| 23 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAVID ROBERT PRICE ALAN JOHN POWERS SHEILA POWERS ROBERT WILLIAM BAZELEY IMAGINATION ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 008 963 648) |
Catchwords: | Fiduciary duties Breach Existence of a fiduciary duty where the respondents were unit holders in a trust and shareholders and directors in a company Duty not to do anything inconsistent with the appellant's beneficial interest in units in a trust or to effect the appellant's powers in relation to those units Duty and breach not established Turns on own facts Remedies Claim for retrospective rectification of the register not made out Costs Claim for costs where a concession is made late Unlikely earlier concession could have avoided trial Exercise of discretion not interfered with |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589 Powers v Hayes [2001] WASC 277 Price v Powers [2005] WASC 154 Whitehouse v Carlton Hotel Pty Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 285 Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Bahr v Nicolay [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 604 Consul Development Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 373 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Kelly v CA & L Bell Commodities Corporation Pty Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 248 New Zealand Netherlands Society "Oranje" Inc v Kuys [1973] 1 WLR 1126 Noranda Australia Ltd v Lachlan Resources NL (1988) 14 NSWLR 1 Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378 Whitehouse v Carlton Hotel Pty Ltd [1983] 1 Qd R 336 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : PRICE -v- POWERS & ORS [2006] WASCA 262 CORAM : MARTIN CJ
- WHEELER JA
PULLIN JA
- Appellant
AND
ALAN JOHN POWERS
First Respondent
SHEILA POWERS
Second Respondent
ROBERT WILLIAM BAZELEY
Third Respondent
IMAGINATION ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 008 963 648)
Fourth Respondent
(Page 2)
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : LE MIERE J
Citation : PRICE -v- POWERS & ORS [2005] WASC 154
File No : CIV 1124 of 2002
Catchwords:
Fiduciary duties - Breach - Existence of a fiduciary duty where the respondents were unit holders in a trust and shareholders and directors in a company - Duty not to do anything inconsistent with the appellant's beneficial interest in units in a trust or to effect the appellant's powers in relation to those units - Duty and breach not…
Continue reading Price v Powers
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Price v Powers [2006] WASCA 262
- Case
- [2006] WASCA 262
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Price v Powers is a case that arose from a dispute concerning fiduciary duties, involving the appellant and the respondents who were unit holders in a trust and also shareholders and directors in a company. The appellant claimed that the respondents breached their fiduciary duties by acting in a way inconsistent with the appellant's beneficial interests in units in the trust or by interfering with the appellant's powers in relation to those units. The court was required to determine whether such a fiduciary duty existed and, if so, whether it was breached.
The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the respondents owed fiduciary duties to the appellant and whether those duties were breached. The court examined whether the nature of the relationship between the parties and the specific circumstances established the existence of such duties and if the respondents' actions were inconsistent with those duties. The court concluded that the duty and breach were not established based on the facts of the case. The court's decision hinged on the specific factual context of the relationship between the parties.
The court held that the fiduciary duty and breach were not established on the facts presented. The court reasoned that the nature of the relationship and the circumstances did not warrant the imposition of such duties. Regarding the claim for retrospective rectification of the register, the court found that it was not made out. As for the costs, the court noted that although a concession was made late, it was unlikely that an earlier concession could have avoided the trial. The court exercised its discretion and determined that the costs claim should proceed as it had. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.
The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the respondents owed fiduciary duties to the appellant and whether those duties were breached. The court examined whether the nature of the relationship between the parties and the specific circumstances established the existence of such duties and if the respondents' actions were inconsistent with those duties. The court concluded that the duty and breach were not established based on the facts of the case. The court's decision hinged on the specific factual context of the relationship between the parties.
The court held that the fiduciary duty and breach were not established on the facts presented. The court reasoned that the nature of the relationship and the circumstances did not warrant the imposition of such duties. Regarding the claim for retrospective rectification of the register, the court found that it was not made out. As for the costs, the court noted that although a concession was made late, it was unlikely that an earlier concession could have avoided the trial. The court exercised its discretion and determined that the costs claim should proceed as it had. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.