SUSAN CHRISTINE FEHRING (IN HER CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE RESPONDENT)	Applicant
v
BRIGHTER DIRECTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 069 671 816) & ORS (According to the Schedule attached)	Respondents

---

JUDGE:	DAVIES J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 June 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 June 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Brighter Directions Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 287

---

CORPORATIONS – Derivative Action – Application for interim order for leave to bring proceeding on behalf of a company – Relevant criteria in granting leave – Whether applicant acting in good faith – Whether in best interests of company that leave be granted – Whether proposed proceeding involves serious issues to be tried – Whether leave can be granted nunc pro tunc – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 237, 241

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr. D J Williams	Harrick Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

The applicant seeks leave under s 237 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“the Act”) to bring proceedings on behalf of Brighter Directions Pty Ltd (“BD”) against the respondents. The application proceeded ex parte because the respondents were not given reasonable notice of the hearing of the application. It was submitted that there was urgency in the hearing of the application by reason of the possibility, albeit regarded as a remote possibility, that there may be an issue about whether the causes of action will be statute barred. In the circumstance, an interim order of leave was sought subject to various undertakings proffered by the applicant directed to ensuring that the company would not be prejudiced if leave was granted but later revoked on a contested hearing of the application.

The Court has the express power to make an interim order on an application for leave.[1]
[1]Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 237(2)(e), 241(1)(a); South Johnston Mill Ltd (ACN 101 695 575) & Ors v Dennis and Scales (ACN 004 044 987) & Anor (2007) 163 FCR 343 [51] (Middleton J).

The applicant is a person who may apply to the Court to bring proceedings on behalf of a company as she is a shareholder of BD.[2]
[2]Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 236(1)(a).

Section 237(2) of the Act contains the criteria for the grant of leave. Section 237(2) provides:

(2) The Court must grant the application if it is satisfied that:
(a)it is probable that the company will not itself bring the proceedings, or properly take responsibility for them, or for the steps in them; and

(b) the applicant is acting in good faith; and
(c)it is in the best interests of the company that the applicant be granted leave; and
(d)if the applicant is applying for leave to bring proceedings—there is a serious question to be tried; and

(e) either:
(i)at least 14 days before making the…

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 Re Brighter Directions Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Re Brighter Directions Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 287
Case: [2010] VSC 287
Decision Date: 23 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Brighter Directions Pty Ltd, the applicant sought an interim order for leave to bring a derivative action on behalf of the company. The application was made to the Federal Court of Australia, and the respondent was the company itself. The primary dispute centred around whether the applicant, a former director, had the right to proceed with a derivative action to recover losses incurred by the company due to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the current directors. The court had to determine if the applicant was acting in good faith and whether it was in the best interests of the company for the application to be granted. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the proposed proceeding involved serious issues to be tried and if leave could be granted nunc pro tunc under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) sections 237 and 241.

The court considered the relevant criteria for granting leave to bring a derivative action, focusing on the good faith of the applicant, the potential benefit to the company, and the seriousness of the issues proposed to be tried. It was necessary to establish whether the applicant was motivated by a genuine desire to protect the company's interests or if there were ulterior motives. The court also evaluated whether allowing the proceeding would serve the best interests of the company, taking into account factors such as the potential recovery of losses and the impact on the company's operations. Furthermore, the court examined whether the issues raised in the proposed proceeding were significant enough to warrant the court's intervention and if granting leave could be justified retroactively.

The court found that the applicant was acting in good faith and that it was in the best interests of the company for the application to be granted. The proposed proceeding involved serious issues that warranted the court's attention, particularly concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the current directors. The court concluded that the applicant had met the necessary criteria for leave to be granted nunc pro tunc. The court ordered that the applicant be granted leave to bring the derivative action on behalf of the company, allowing the proceeding to proceed with the potential to recover losses incurred by Brighter Directions Pty Ltd.

Orders