Findings made in support of orders to be made in an oppression suit and in a variety of other proceedings. The form of orders to be made is to be the subject of further submissions.
Catchwords:
CORPORATIONS — Members’ rights and remedies — Oppression — Where conduct is oppressive to, unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against minority – Where conduct is contrary to the interests of the members as a whole – Directors engaged in conduct with total disregard to the interests of another shareholder – Oppression found
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Claims by adult children excluded from management of family company – Shares in company without commercial value in the absence of voting rights – Orders for provision moulded to facilitate participation in management
(1) Case No 2018/00050908 (“the James Proceedings”)
Parties: Cross-Claimant: James Soulos First Cross Defendant: Con Kristallis Second Cross Defendant: Trevor Ian Cork Third Cross Defendant: Nicholas Andrew Soulos
Representation: Counsel: Cross Claimant: A Cheshire SC (on 15-16 September 2022) and T Rollo First and second cross defendants: V Bedrossian SC, N Bilinsky and M Jaieth Third cross defendant: E Herman (on 5,7,8,15,16 September 2022)
Solicitors: Cross Claimant: Carroll & O’Dea First and…
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 Estate Soulos
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re Estate Soulos [2022] NSWSC 1507
Case
[2022] NSWSC 1507
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Re Estate Soulos, the matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute involved a family company, with the deceased estate of George Soulos as the respondent. The applicant, George Soulos's son, sought relief under both the Corporations Act and the Family Provision Act. The son claimed that he had been oppressed and unfairly excluded from the management of the family company, which had resulted in his shares becoming effectively valueless due to the lack of voting rights. The son also sought provision from the deceased's estate, arguing that he had been excluded from the family business despite having a legitimate expectation of participation.
The court was required to determine whether the son's shares in the company had been rendered valueless due to oppressive conduct by the directors and whether this conduct constituted oppression under the Corporations Act. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the son's exclusion from the family business justified a claim for provision from the deceased's estate under the Family Provision Act. The key issues revolved around the definition and application of oppression, the value of shares lacking voting rights, and the circumstances under which a claim for family provision could be justified.
The court found that the directors' conduct amounted to oppression as it was oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, and discriminatory against the son. The directors had engaged in conduct that demonstrated total disregard for the son's interests, effectively rendering his shares valueless. This finding of oppression was sufficient to justify the court's intervention. Regarding the family provision claim, the court accepted that the son had a legitimate expectation of participating in the family business, which was not fulfilled. The court moulded the order for provision to facilitate the son's participation in the management of the company, ensuring that he could realise the value of his shareholding.
The final orders included directing the company to acquire the son's shares at a price reflecting their true value, considering their lack of voting rights. Additionally, the court ordered that a provision be made from the deceased's estate to the son, enabling him to participate in the management of the family company. These orders were designed to address the oppressive conduct and provide the son with a fair opportunity to participate in the company's management, aligning with both the statutory objectives of the Corporations Act and the equitable principles of the Family Provision Act.