Re AGL Gas Networks Ltd - [2001] NSWSC 165

Reported Decision:
(2001) 160 FLR 269
(2001) 37 ACSR 441
(2001) 19 ACLC 743
[2001] NSWSC 165
[2001] ACL Rep 120 NSW 40

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: AGL Gas Networks Limited (Application of) [2001] NSWSC 165 revised - 10/05/2001

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5173/00

HEARING DATE(S): 26 February 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 March 2001

PARTIES :

In the matter of AGL GAS NETWORKS LIMITED (formerly AGL Sydney Limited):
AGL GAS NETWORKS LIMITED (formerly AGL Sydney Limited) (ACN 003 004 322) (Plaintiff)

JUDGMENT OF: Santow J

COUNSEL : C R C Newlinds (Plaintiff)

SOLICITORS: Minter Ellison (Plaintiff)

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS — PROCEDURE — Rectification and validation of scheme for reconstruction and amalgamation — Scheme never became operative according to its terms contrary to the assumptions upon which everyone has acted since 1994 — Slip rule — Authorisation under the Gas Act delivered a few seconds too late — Circularity of conditions involving scheme conditions and transfer of scheme assets — Does the Court have power and jurisdiction to make rectifying and validating orders — Possible application of s1322(4) and (2) of Corporations Law. - WORDS AND PHRASES — Meaning of "in relation to".

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Law s195; s411; 413; s1322
Gas Act 1986 (NSW) s16
Supreme Court Rules Pt 2 r 3; Pt 20 r 10 (the 'slip rule')

CASES CITED: A.S.C. v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd (1993) 177 CLR 485
Arnett v Holloway [1960] VR 22
Australasian Memory Pty Ltd and Anor v Brien and Anor [2000] 34 ACSR 250
Bailey v. Marinoff (1971) 125 CLR 592
Bond Corporation Holdings v State of Western Australia (No.2) (1992) 7 WAR 61
B.T.S. Bearings Pty Ltd v Transmission Supplies Pty Ltd (1983) 1 ACLC 923, 8 ACLR 287
Caratti v Hillman [1974] WAR 92
Diversified Mineral Resources NL v Amusmet Investments Pty Ltd (1991) 9 ACLC 1047, 5 ACSR 465
El Ali v GIO (1998) 15 NSWLR 303
Elyard Corporation Pty Limited v DDB Needham Sydney Pty Limited (1995) 133 ALR 206
Galler and Others v DDS Investments Pty Limited (Federal Court of Australia, Victoria District Registry, 7 March 1997, unreported)
Hill v Anderson Meat Industries Limited [1971] 1 NSWLR 868
Kempe v Ambassador Insurance Co [1998] 1 WLR 271
Re Matine Limited & Others (1998) 28 ACSR 268
Morgan v 45 Flyers Avenue Pty Ltd (1987) 11 NSWLR 573
Re Park Lane Jewellers Pty Limited (1985) 10 ACLR 138
Paino v Hofbauer (1998) 13 NSWLR 193
Schafer v Blyth [1920] 3 KB 140
Southern Cross Exploration NL v Fire & All Risks Insurance Co Limited (1986) 7 NSWLR 319 — affirmed on appeal (1988) 165 CLR 268
Tooheys Limited v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (1960) 105 CLR 602
Workers’ Compensation Board (Qld) v Technical Products Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 642

DECISION: Rectifying orders made as set out in para 62.

REVISED — 10 May, 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
IN EQUITY

SANTOW J
No. 5173/00

In the matter of AGL GAS…

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 AGL Gas Networks 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: [2001] NSWSC 165
Decision Date: 20 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re AGL Gas Networks Ltd, the parties involved were AGL Gas Networks Ltd and the Commissioner of Taxation. The dispute centred around the rectification and validation of a scheme for reconstruction and amalgamation, which had been implemented since 1994. The court was required to determine whether the scheme had ever become operative according to its terms, despite the assumptions on which everyone had acted. The High Court of Australia was the court that delivered the decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had the power and jurisdiction to make rectifying and validating orders. The court needed to decide whether the slip rule could apply and whether the authorisation under the Gas Act, which was delivered a few seconds too late, could be considered valid. Additionally, the court examined the circularity of conditions involving the scheme conditions and the transfer of scheme assets. The court also considered the possible application of sections 1322(4) and (2) of the Corporations Law.

The court held that the scheme never became operative according to its terms, despite the assumptions on which everyone had acted since 1994. The slip rule could not be applied as the authorisation under the Gas Act was delivered a few seconds too late. Furthermore, the circularity of conditions involving the scheme conditions and the transfer of scheme assets made it impossible to validate the scheme. The court found that it had the power and jurisdiction to make rectifying and validating orders, taking into account the meaning of "in relation to" as per sections 1322(4) and (2) of the Corporations Law. The court decided to make the necessary orders to rectify and validate the scheme.

The final orders of the court were to rectify and validate the scheme for reconstruction and amalgamation, recognising the actions taken by all parties since 1994. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the scheme became operative according to its terms, taking into consideration the slip rule and the authorisation under the Gas Act. The court also highlighted the need for clarity in the conditions involving the scheme and the transfer of scheme assets, in order to avoid any circularity that may hinder the validation of the scheme.

Orders