Re Botanical Water Holdings Pty Ltd - [2013] VSC 96

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
CORPORATIONS LIST

No. S CI 4564 of 2011

IN THE MATTER OF BOTANICAL WATER HOLDINGS PTY LTD

BETWEEN:

AGAO NOMINEES PTY LTD and OTHERS

Plaintiffs

AJ PHOENIX PTY LTD and ORS

Defendants

---

JUDGE:	ROBSON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 and 6 December 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 March 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Botanical Water Holdings Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 96

---

CORPORATIONS – Whether or not a share holding in the company was validly altered as recorded on the register of companies kept by ASIC – Shareholding not validly altered – Declaration made accordingly – Finding that plaintiff not appointed as a director as he claimed – Order that ASIC register of companies be rectified accordingly –Corporations Act 2001, s 1342(4)(b).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	LEP Magowan	Melbourne Legal Partners Pty Ltd
For the First Defendant	No appearance
For the Second Defendant	No appearance
For the Third Defendant	No appearance
For the Fourth Defendant	Mr Abdou appeared in person
For the Fifth Defendant	No appearance
For the Sixth defendant	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and summary

Dr Kambouris (the second plaintiff), is an industrial chemist who invented a process to recover energy enriched water from fruit. Mr Moussi is a longstanding friend of Dr Kambouris. Dr Kambouris and Mr Moussi wished to commercially exploit Dr Kambouris’ invention. Dr Kambouris and Mr Moussi were introduced to Mr Abdou (the fourth defendant) and Mr Papadimitriou, who were experienced property developers, to consider means of raising capital to exploit the invention.

In 2010, Dr Kambouris and Mr Moussi, and Mr Abdou and Mr Papadimitriou agreed to enter into a joint venture together to exploit the invention. Relevantly, the parties agreed that Mr Moussi would falsely claim to be the inventor of the process the subject of the patent application. Mr Moussi would then assign the invention to a company incorporated for the purpose of the joint venture, Botanical Water Holdings Pty Ltd (the sixth defendant) (Botanical Water Holdings). Dr Kambouris would have a 51% interest in Botanical Water Holdings through his company, AGAO Nominees Pty Ltd (the first plaintiff) (AGAO), Mr Abdou and Mr Papadimitriou would have 45% through their company, AJ Phoenix Pty Ltd (the first defendant), and Mr Moussi 4% through his company, Play Australia Pty Ltd (the third plaintiff). It was agreed that AGAO would act as trustee for a family trust settled for the benefit of Dr Kambouris and his family.

The parties sought to hide the involvement of Dr Kambouris in this joint venture from his then employer, Australian Vintage Limited (AVL). The parties were concerned that if AVL knew of Dr Kambouris’ involvement, AVL may claim the benefit of the invention or take proceedings against Dr Kambouris. To that end, Mr Moussi falsely represented that he was the inventor, and Mr Abdou was appointed the sole…

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 Botanical Water 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: [2013] VSC 96
Decision Date: 13 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Botanical Water Holdings Pty Ltd, the primary dispute concerned the validity of a change in the company's share register as maintained by ASIC. The plaintiff sought to have a change in the company's share register recognised, asserting that the change had been validly executed. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the validity of the share alteration.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's appointment as a director was valid and whether the subsequent change in the company's share register accurately reflected the true shareholding. The court had to consider the requirements under the Corporations Act 2001 for altering share registers and the conditions under which such alterations are recognised by ASIC. Furthermore, the court needed to ascertain the true nature of the plaintiff's role and whether the share alteration complied with the statutory provisions.

The Federal Court found that the plaintiff had not been validly appointed as a director and, therefore, the alteration of the share register was not legitimate. The court noted that the requirements for a valid alteration under section 1342(4)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 had not been met. Consequently, the court ordered that the ASIC register of companies be corrected to reflect the true shareholding of the company, removing the plaintiff's name as a director and shareholder. This decision ensured that the company's records accurately represented its legal structure and ownership.

Orders