Legal Research
Cases
Re 700 Form Holdings Pty Ltd

Re 700 Form Holdings Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 19 August 2014 63 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE COMMERCIAL COURT CORPORATIONS LIST
S CI 2013 05859 IN THE MATTER OF: FORM 700 HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 102 996 378) BLACKSHAWS PROPERTY HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 150 049 255) CONCRETE FORMING SYSTEMS PTY LTD (ACN 109 739 488) HI LIFT CRANES PTY LTD (ACN 106 682 197) STRIDE SURVEY PTY LTD (ACN 151 144 820) 270 BLACKSHAWS ROAD PTY LTD (ACN 103 217 732) FORMULA ONE SELF DRIVING SCREENS PTY LTD (ACN 096 522 780) (collectively, “the Corporations”) AND IN THE MATTER OF: RBSC INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 102 996 547) in its capacity as trustee of THE RBSC INVESTMENTS UNIT TRUST (respectively, the “Trustee Company” and the “RBSC Trust”) BETWEEN:
PAUL BRAZIS BRAZIS NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 102 996 001) FERNDELL PTY LTD (ACN 110 422 145)
Plaintiffs
and
EMILIO ROSATI WASYL ROSATI NICK SPIROPOULOS ROSATI NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 102 995 862) NICK SPIROPOULOS NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 102 996 136) BONDILLY PTY LTD (ACN 165 032 593) NRJMD PTY LTD (ACN 160 435 245) KEY PROPERTIES INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 155 877 857) KIRTAS PTY LTD (ACN 003 231 141)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	ROBSON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 July 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 August 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re 700 Form Holdings Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 385

---

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION - Originating process raising an oppression application under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and other claims under the Act - Application under s 8 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Vic) for a stay of oppression application – Whether an oppression application under the Corporations Act was the subject of an arbitration agreement – Application granted – Application to stay balance of claims under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction – Application refused - Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Vic), s 8; Corporations Act2001 (Cth), s 232, s 233.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr P L Erlich	Rankin & Co
For the Defendants	Mr A T Strahan with Ms V Blidman	DLA Piper

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
Shareholders Agreement.................................................................................................... 1
The evidence of Mr Brazis.................................................................................................. 4
The relief sought.................................................................................................................. 8
The relevant legislation.................................................................................................... 10
Section 8 of the Commercial Arbitration Act................................................................. 12
The dispute resolution clause and its scope................................................................. 14
The dispute resolution provisions in the Shareholders Agreement......................... 15
Principles of construction................................................................................................. 15
A matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement.......................................... 18
May an arbitration clause refer to an arbitrator statutory rights and remedies?..... 20
In connection with............................................................................................................. 26
The opposing contentions................................................................................................ 27
Consideration of the opposing contentions.................................................................. 30
The remaining matters...................................................................................................... 37
Balance of the Claims........................................................................................................ 38

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiffs are shareholders in Form 700 Holdings Pty Ltd (Form 700) and the other Corporations as defined above in the title of the proceeding. The second plaintiff is also a shareholder in the Trustee Company as defined above in the title to the proceeding. By their originating process, the plaintiffs…

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 Re 700 Form Holdings Pty Ltd 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: [2014] VSC 385
Decision Date: 19 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re 700 Form Holdings Pty Ltd, the court was faced with an application for a stay of an oppression application, alongside other claims brought under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The applicants sought to halt the oppression application, arguing it was subject to an arbitration agreement, while also requesting a stay of the remaining claims under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The dispute primarily involved internal corporate governance and shareholder rights, with the applicants contending that an arbitration agreement should govern the resolution of the oppression claim. The Court had to determine whether the oppression application was indeed subject to the arbitration agreement and whether the remaining claims could be stayed under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The court's task was to examine the terms of the arbitration agreement and its applicability to the oppression application. It was necessary to interpret the scope of the arbitration clause and decide if the oppression claim fell within its purview. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether there were grounds to exercise the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to stay the remaining claims. The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties, assessing the enforceability of the arbitration agreement and the appropriateness of a stay of the remaining claims.

The court concluded that the oppression application was indeed subject to the arbitration agreement, finding that the terms of the agreement were broad enough to encompass the oppression claim. Consequently, the application for a stay of the oppression application was granted. However, the court found no sufficient grounds to stay the remaining claims under the Court's inherent jurisdiction. The decision highlighted the importance of clear arbitration clauses in corporate agreements and the limited circumstances under which the Court would exercise its inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings.

The final orders of the court included a stay of the oppression application in favour of the applicants, directing that the matter proceed to arbitration as per the terms of the arbitration agreement. The remaining claims were not stayed, allowing them to continue in the Court. The decision underscored the need for clear contractual terms and the careful consideration required in balancing the rights of corporate parties against the enforceability of arbitration agreements.

Orders